Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I suppose following the coastline for as much of the journey as possible is advisable given the game offers a penalty to sub action in "shallow" water. I think this is where the game may diverge from reality to some extent.

The area where the sea floor is shallow enough to actually deter subs, while also being far enough at sea to be safe for navigation is I would think (total naval groupie here so maybe I'm just talking out my lower end) fairly unpredictable and if a ship is constantly trying to follow this "safe zone" then it probably adds to travel time tremendously and makes task force coordination a hassle . . . not to mention, depth finding technology might not have been that great in many of the old tubs used by the Japanese to haul stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I do want to get Tracker running but right now I'm getting that silly "can't run a 32-bit app on a 64-bit rig" error message, so I need to sort that out.

ADDIT: I get the impression a lot of JFB use a "small hop" system in which cargo TF take care of the Hinterland--->to Osaka transit in small sections. Say for example: Palembang -> Sing -> Cam Ranh -> Takao -> Home Islands

I haven't thought it through very well, but I have to say, my initial inclnation is to do it very differently:

Hinterland base -> Osaka (else Hiroshima or one of the other size 10s)

Perhaps this is just not tenable?


I look at it like this: where are subs most likely to strike? The open sea, near a continental shelf and along a predictable travel route.

What does a sub captain want to see? A routine medium or large TF that goes back and forth fairly frequently between two ports like a train schedule. Get one or more boats into position: harvest.

My inclination is to use small TF comprising at most 3 merchant men (preferable two), and each with only 1 escort, and send every single one of them on some crazy random journey, essentially trying to NEVER repeat the same path or periodicity for any resource transit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I do want to get Tracker running but right now I'm getting that silly "can't run a 32-bit app on a 64-bit rig" error message, so I need to sort that out.

ADDIT: I get the impression a lot of JFB use a "small hop" system in which cargo TF take care of the Hinterland--->to Osaka transit in small sections. Say for example: Palembang -> Sing -> Cam Ranh -> Takao -> Home Islands

I haven't thought it through very well, but I have to say, my initial inclnation is to do it very differently:

Hinterland base -> Osaka (else Hiroshima or one of the other size 10s)

Perhaps this is just not tenable?


I look at it like this: where are subs most likely to strike? The open sea, near a continental shelf and along a predictable travel route.

What does a sub captain want to see? A routine medium or large TF that goes back and forth fairly frequently between two ports like a train schedule. Get one or more boats into position: harvest.

My inclination is to use small TF comprising at most 3 merchant men (preferable two), and each with only 1 escort, and send every single one of them on some crazy random journey, essentially trying to NEVER repeat the same path or periodicity for any resource transit.

Your issue is efficiency of transport and loading at the original base, first, and the actual path you chose, second.

Palembang, the most important oil/fuel base on map for Japan is a max 4 port. You need small ships for smaller ports to load effectively (and without a lot of micro-management). These ships have small bunkers and hog more fuel per unit they carry also, so they will not be a good choice to haul more than short runs.

The big tankers are more efficient and need the big ports, so you are forced to use at least one big hub port on each end. It's a good idea to use protected (air and sea ASW) and potentially shallow routes. Of course changing routes a lot is decent practice if challenged, but also using larger well protected convoys works well in game. The more out there the more chance subs will find them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I use the bigger ones at Palembang because the port can load 9000 Oil per day per ship just from the Oil center "bonus" alone, and using (for example) 6000-capacity TKs/AOs means I'm being inefficient because there is a better capacity to tonnage ratio on the bigger ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I use the bigger ones at Palembang because the port can load 9000 Oil per day per ship just from the Oil center "bonus" alone, and using (for example) 6000-capacity TKs/AOs means I'm being inefficient because there is a better capacity to tonnage ratio on the bigger ships.

Woud be inefficient only if you had unlimited TKs of all sizes. But you don't. Most of those larger TKs/AOs should be enroute to/from Japan all the time. And it is a waste of fuel to make smaller TKs transport long-distance, you are better off with smaller guys shuttling to Singers, while larger doing the long haul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
What I've discovered:
1. A small convoy can load much faster than a big one. (Yeah, I know, I'm being Captain Obvious).
It's all in the numbers - make large enough to load fast, but not too large to wait too much. Should use large port on both ends for this anyway

2. Small convoys can be spaced so that few of them are in port loading/unloading at the same time.
Irrelevant for liquids, they almost never intersect with each other in the destination

3. Using small convoys also means that you are constantly receiving fuel/oil/resources as opposed to having big offloads then several days/weeks wait until the next offload.
Irrelevant for both resources and liquids. No spoilage on unload anyway. And you are doing something wrong if you scrape the barrel while regular shipping is still on.

4. You put less strain on the HI trying to load supplies onto a convoy that is loaded both ways.
Irrelevant for liquids, one way only

5. In the event that the bad guys show up, you lose less shipping capacity in a single turn. (IE not putting all your eggs in one basket).
Only subs are a threat (Escorts!). All bets are off when Allies' SCTFs enter South China Sea, but then it's not convoy mode, it is emergency sneaking mode.

Of course, the drawback is that you will always be short of escorts...but then, that's nothing new to an IJN player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid


Not like those posh allies with their infinite supplies and oil

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

My brain is like a twitter feed, it only holds 140 characters at a time so I've been unable to read all the posts on this thread. I just want to say one (or two) things: Decide quickly which planes you are never going to build and divert that R&D factory to something else, like Franks for instance. Also think out what engines you need the most and when will you need them. You want to get to the 500 in inventory on some of them as soon as you can and keep going. There are engines and airframes you should want to stop building or developing immediately. For instance, I for one don't care much for the Tony. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC the Tony is the only plane that uses the HA-60 engine. My prescription: stop the Tony R&D and the HA_60 as well. There are also some planes and engines that you have way too many of at the start and need to stop making those. Getting the air war right is the most important concern you have.

quote:

As far as the economy, I guess the overall topline synthesis would be: damn the torpeodes! full speed ahead! Having never even played as Jap against AI, I'm probably on thin ice here but ah well! The fun is the hunt!

I expended every single Manpower point I had to upgrade the HI in my core industrial bases (mostly all Home Island). All aircraft production was changed to the following:
3 A6M2 Zero
3 Ki-43-Ic Oscar
2 B5N2 Kate
2 D3A1 Val
1 E13A1 Jake
2 G4M1 Betty
2 H6K4 Mavis
1 Ki-1s-II Babs
2 Ki-21-IIa Sally
1 Ki-56 Thalia

If my calculations are correct this amounts to 126 Nak 35; 8 Mits 31; 108 Mits 32; and 125 Mits 33 engines required. Engine factories are configured accordingly.

With the various drains on HI turned down a bit (aircraft and engines at full blast, and armaments vehicles not much lowered) I'm about 3 to 5 k in the hole on HI for now: must conquest more Industrial centers pronto!!

I'm probably gonna run out of supply in a matter of months if I fail to "harvest" more . . . The oil reserve seems more forgiving but even there, my current "full steam ahead" posture has probably reduced sustainability by half of what it actually was for Japan on 7 Dec 1941.

Research: I basically just turned ON the ones that were already repaired. I'm not planning for this contest to last much beyond Fall 1942. I will have either achieved far better success than Japan did by that time, or I'll be wrecked. Will still be interesting if the result lands somewhere in between those two (and it will be fun to carry on to the bitter end in those "less decided" circumstances), but one of the two extremes are the two most anticipated short-term outcomes of my strategy at the outset: Victory or Death!

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I use the bigger ones at Palembang because the port can load 9000 Oil per day per ship just from the Oil center "bonus" alone, and using (for example) 6000-capacity TKs/AOs means I'm being inefficient because there is a better capacity to tonnage ratio on the bigger ships.

Woud be inefficient only if you had unlimited TKs of all sizes. But you don't. Most of those larger TKs/AOs should be enroute to/from Japan all the time. And it is a waste of fuel to make smaller TKs transport long-distance, you are better off with smaller guys shuttling to Singers, while larger doing the long haul

Not to mention you'd want to have fairly large and protected convoy of large TKs. It follows that this convoy should load at large port to not waste time waiting turns

Also, numbers from my stock 1 game - 16 Std-C TKs (in 2-3 convoys) is enough to shuttle PB liquids to Singers. + 5x1250 TKs on Medan-Georgetown + 1x1250 TK on Bengkalis-Singers complete Sumatra coverage

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

As Japan is it enough to just conquer all needed to build a well supplied, well managed economy and a strong defensive barrier around it?
Can Japan set back and play defensive as the Allies build up?
This goes back to the first move discussions; in the first year of the war does Japan have to conduct a offense that will provoke the Allies into a big battle, or series of battles, in order to destroy enough Allied forces that will throw the Allied advantage -offensive capability- back by years?

No need to give away TOP SUPER SPECIAL SECRETS.

quote:

rapidly conquest the "Southern Resource Area" and ship as much of the stuff back to home islands as quickly as possible, then Japan's war machine will grind to a halt long before time is up.

quote:

My understanding is that: "In WitP, Japanese player could basically sit idle and use his military assets primarily to ambush / create a defensive perimeter."

quote:

Most IJ players consider it necessary to put some units out in exposed positions as speed-bumps to slow down the Allied comeback

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

When talking regular shipping of liquids by Japan, it's a special and the most important case of convoy routine, and many of your points are not really viable. Resource shipping with xAKs is another story, Japan can do whatever it likes since shipping is plentiful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
What I've discovered:
1. A small convoy can load much faster than a big one. (Yeah, I know, I'm being Captain Obvious).
It's all in the numbers - make large enough to load fast, but not too large to wait too much. Should use large port on both ends for this anyway

2. Small convoys can be spaced so that few of them are in port loading/unloading at the same time.
Irrelevant for liquids, they almost never intersect with each other in the destination

3. Using small convoys also means that you are constantly receiving fuel/oil/resources as opposed to having big offloads then several days/weeks wait until the next offload.
Irrelevant for both resources and liquids. No spoilage on unload anyway. And you are doing something wrong if you scrape the barrel while regular shipping is still on.

4. You put less strain on the HI trying to load supplies onto a convoy that is loaded both ways.
Irrelevant for liquids, one way only

5. In the event that the bad guys show up, you lose less shipping capacity in a single turn. (IE not putting all your eggs in one basket).
Only subs are a threat (Escorts!). All bets are off when Allies' SCTFs enter South China Sea, but then it's not convoy mode, it is emergency sneaking mode.

Of course, the drawback is that you will always be short of escorts...but then, that's nothing new to an IJN player.

Being short of escorts is not the only drawback. By doing many small convoys you make it easier for Allies to sniff out your routes. And boy, those are THE drawbacks for liquids shipping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Most IJ players consider it necessary to put some units out in exposed positions as speed-bumps to slow down the Allied comeback.
Unless Japan is close to Auto-Victory in late 1942 (and wants the points for Noumea) there is no real reason to take New Caledonia except as a speed bump - one more thorn for the Allies to extract before they can start their own march.

quote:

I have better success using other methods, which I don't really want to detail here at the moment.

quote:

I expended every single Manpower point I had to upgrade the HI in my core industrial bases (mostly all Home Island). All aircraft production was changed to the following:
3 A6M2 Zero
3 Ki-43-Ic Oscar
2 B5N2 Kate
2 D3A1 Val
1 E13A1 Jake
2 G4M1 Betty
2 H6K4 Mavis
1 Ki-1s-II Babs
2 Ki-21-IIa Sally
1 Ki-56 Thalia

quote:

I don't see a huge difference between Mavis (25 hex) and Emily (30 hex) and especially given there is an intermediary mid 1942 model of Mavis (28 hex) that is nearly as good as the Emily. Am I missing something about the Emily?

quote:

The Thalia does seem to be a worse choice compared to the Tina. I might have just overlooked that model. I'll have to compare those two models a bit more closely and perhaps change those Thalia's to Tinas.

quote:

4. The B5N2 Kate versus the B5N1, here is what I noted, and correct me if my intuition on this is flawed: although it is inconsequentially different from the B5N1 on most performance specifications (and worse on a couple) it has radar. I assume this is a _good_ thing no?