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: CV refuling

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CV refuling Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 5:32:19 AM   
Damien Thorn

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid
Any base with combined port and airfield of 10 or more has no spoilage


With that sentence above I feel like I can now relax and not worry about the spoilage thing anymore. Thank you.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 31
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 8:27:47 AM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		Its not that you have much choice, Damien. Were you planning on not using a base until you got it up to 10+?

Pardon my annoying tennacity, but I still dont beleive my question has been answered. Let me try and rephrase it. If KB were to leave Japan, at a rate of speed set by AI (which I assume to be a calculated nominal for fuel consumption), with its destination set to something ridiculously distant, like Australia, how far will it actually get before the fuel runs out? Thanks.

(in reply to Damien Thorn)
Post #: 32
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 12:46:44 PM   
Subchaser


Posts: 1201
Joined: 11/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

A question has occured to me just now. REading the AARs from Raver and Luskan makes me wonder how Luskan manages to move his CV forces in such a dashing manner. Is there a huge AO TF tagging along, or is it simply a matter of moving slowly enough to conserve fuel. In UV, this has always been a problem for me. CV TFs seem to have very short legs. Keeping them "on station" becomes nearly impossible after a week or so.


It also helps that huge fleets like KB can zip into a size 1 "port" (fishing wharf with a drum and pump system) which somehow has huge fuel reserves to refuel/rearm in a turn and zoom out. One of the few remaining logistical anomalies which exist are the naval base issues (capacity/operations limits/logistic restrictions), apparently to assist the AI. I'd like to see this changed somehow...


Ron, if they won’t change this, we still can get rid of these port/refueling anomalies with a help of house rules set, it require more micro management but I prefer to waste more time rather than to see 6 large carriers refuel in just one day in Tulagi harbor being absolutely invulnerable. Paradoxical WitP feature that can spoil the whole fun

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 33
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 3:48:51 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Pardon my annoying tennacity, but I still dont beleive my question has been answered. Let me try and rephrase it. If KB were to leave Japan, at a rate of speed set by AI (which I assume to be a calculated nominal for fuel consumption), with its destination set to something ridiculously distant, like Australia, how far will it actually get before the fuel runs out? Thanks.


At regular speed, it will make it. At full speed with aircraft launching strikes on the way it will not.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 34
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 3:50:45 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Its not that you have much choice, Damien. Were you planning on not using a base until you got it up to 10+?


Bases function quite fine under this level, they just don't hold 999,999 supplies and fuel. There are limits that means you need to send supplies and fuel on a regular basis, not a massive one shot TF.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 35
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 6:55:38 PM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		Thank you Frag, I have my answer.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 36
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 7:18:04 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		No Japan player can afford to dump massive amounts of supply or fuel at a size 1 base, even if it gains him a short term bennie in terms of a 'quick refuel'. Between the spoilage and the fuel usuage by the ships....Japan will quickly find itself dry.

Technically the Allied player could ignore this but such tactics will increase his logistics headache. Remember these are 24 hour turns......not 1 week Pacwar turns, and not 24 turns in a small UV map. it takes serious TIME to ship all that black gold from the US west coast and will complicate the timing of operations and sustained campaigns.

_____________________________


(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 37
RE: CV refuling - 6/17/2004 10:00:35 PM   
Jonny_B


Posts: 299
Joined: 5/20/2004
From: Dunnellon, Florida
Status: offline


Mr. Nikademus:

Since the forum is already discussing fuel and supply rates.
Does the AI computer ever make any miscalculations, such as low fuel or supplies at forward bases?
I know I will make quite a few while playing, and that is part of the game.
Realizing that you have done something regrettable, being able to overcome a mistake.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 38
RE: CV refuling - 6/18/2004 8:14:42 PM   
PzLdr

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Washington DC
Status: offline 		Its interesting to read about all this discussion on fuel and spoilage, etc. Just as a reminder... It takes infrastructure to hold that Oil and refined fuels. Back in those days you just didn't drop a convoy of several millions of gallons of Oil or fuel without infrastructure to hold it. Now the old 55gal drums is good for tactical unit usage but not fleet refueling... Big Tank farms take time to build for that. I would guess that small size port should not be allow to refuel ships because they didn't have the infrastructure to support those type operations...now maybe for the small PT type boats but not CV, BB, etc. If bases have means to show base infrastructure showing bulk fuel capabilities, I could then believe they have the infrastructure for it.

But I could see building a base to a 3 or larger before getting to sizes that would have the infrastructure. Assuming a new forward base or small port had installed a large bulk fuel holding tank/refueling network to fuel ships etc and handle Ms of gals of fuel is wrong. In keeping the gaming system simple. Limiting bases at levels one or maybe 2 from conducting refueling of TF with large ships in them would seem a good limitation onto the game.

Also, building that type of infrastructure is not done by the simple combat engineer type units. Hvy construction units with Hvy Engineer equipment would be needed.

_____________________________

No Guts, NO Glory!!!

(in reply to Jonny_B)
Post #: 39
RE: CV refuling - 6/18/2004 8:19:47 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Since the forum is already discussing fuel and supply rates.
Does the AI computer ever make any miscalculations, such as low fuel or supplies at forward bases?
I know I will make quite a few while playing, and that is part of the game.
Realizing that you have done something regrettable, being able to overcome a mistake.


The AI is not always the brightest at making the logic jump between a base requiring fuel and knowing that a TF is going to show up and drain the base of fuel. There are things built into the system to deal with that type of situation. You'll likely find yourself making exactly the same mistakes the AI does so don't be too hard on the AI code. It plays as well as an average player. If you feel that is not good enough, increase the difficulty level which increases the AI's abilities to spank you.

(in reply to Jonny_B)
Post #: 40
RE: CV refuling - 6/18/2004 8:20:39 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		I'm with Subchaser and Panzerleader. There should be a port size limit on refueling ships. Or at least a speed modifier: if you want to top off the New Jersey with 5 gallon cans, go right ahead, but expect to be anchored for awhile.


BUT ONLY AS A PATCH AFTER THE GAME IS RELEASED!

< Message edited by byron13 -- 6/18/2004 6:20:58 PM >

(in reply to PzLdr)
Post #: 41
RE: CV refuling - 6/18/2004 8:38:26 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

A question has occured to me just now. REading the AARs from Raver and Luskan makes me wonder how Luskan manages to move his CV forces in such a dashing manner. Is there a huge AO TF tagging along, or is it simply a matter of moving slowly enough to conserve fuel. In UV, this has always been a problem for me. CV TFs seem to have very short legs. Keeping them "on station" becomes nearly impossible after a week or so.


It also helps that huge fleets like KB can zip into a size 1 "port" (fishing wharf with a drum and pump system) which somehow has huge fuel reserves to refuel/rearm in a turn and zoom out. One of the few remaining logistical anomalies which exist are the naval base issues (capacity/operations limits/logistic restrictions), apparently to assist the AI. I'd like to see this changed somehow...


Ron, if they won’t change this, we still can get rid of these port/refueling anomalies with a help of house rules set, it require more micro management but I prefer to waste more time rather than to see 6 large carriers refuel in just one day in Tulagi harbor being absolutely invulnerable. Paradoxical WitP feature that can spoil the whole fun


Excellent. A decent size for me to allow refueling of major warships would be 5 and up. Other than that, a tanker used as a depot in smaller ports (to simulate storage) is required for lesser ships. After all, this is why AO 1 Kanawha was present at Tulagi when she was sunk in 43.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Subchaser)
Post #: 42
RE: CV refuling - 6/18/2004 8:53:44 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		I've always wondered about this. KB takes multiple tankers worth to refuel. A size 3 port can not hold multiple tankers worth of fuel. Whats the problem here?

Tulagi is a 3(3)+0(0) size.

Plugging that into the good ole' spoilage formula gives 1000+(3*3*1000) total or 10,000.

A single large TK is 16,000

Get the engineers to expand the place a bit more to a 5(3)+2(0) gives us 1000+(7*7*1000) total or 50,000 so we are up holding 3 TK's worth.

Go totally nuts and have them Yanks bring in the seabees. Max it out!

6(3)+3(0) gives us 1000+(9*9*1000) or 82,000. Wow, a whole 5 TK's worth.

I just don't see a problem here. Can someone explain what I am missing? Thats a size 6! port, there are only 3 sizes larger in the game. 5 crummy tankers worth of fuel is a problem?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 43
RE: CV refuling - 6/18/2004 9:11:52 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Just for some info:

BB's in KB: 6330, 6330

CV's in KB: 5000, 5000, 3670, 3670, 8208, 5800

CA's in KB: 2950, 2950

Thats 46,238 not counting the DD's (DD's are about 1,000 for every 2)

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 44
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 4:29:38 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		You never did answer whether everything in excess of 10,000 would be lost immediately, or whether just some percentage. If it's just a percentage, the problem is that the player times things to dump a bunch of fuel oil on the beach of a deserted atoll, the next turn (after only, say, 5% is lost to spoilation) the whole fleet drops in, refuels in one day, and bugs out. While some or all of the remaining fuel may "spoil," the loss of what little is left is worth it for the ability to refuel instantly in a remote part of the ocean.

Extreme example, but that is the perceived problem. Is this not the case?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 45
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 5:07:05 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Never tested, but I assume it's just gone ... there is nowhere to put it so it can't just shrink by a bit a turn.

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 46
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 5:30:51 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I've always wondered about this. KB takes multiple tankers worth to refuel. A size 3 port can not hold multiple tankers worth of fuel. Whats the problem here?

Tulagi is a 3(3)+0(0) size.

Plugging that into the good ole' spoilage formula gives 1000+(3*3*1000) total or 10,000.

A single large TK is 16,000

Get the engineers to expand the place a bit more to a 5(3)+2(0) gives us 1000+(7*7*1000) total or 50,000 so we are up holding 3 TK's worth.

Go totally nuts and have them Yanks bring in the seabees. Max it out!

6(3)+3(0) gives us 1000+(9*9*1000) or 82,000. Wow, a whole 5 TK's worth.

I just don't see a problem here. Can someone explain what I am missing? Thats a size 6! port, there are only 3 sizes larger in the game. 5 crummy tankers worth of fuel is a problem?


Problem 1) See any tank farms on period pictures of these atolls and bases which all have fuel reserves and facilities in the game? Only major commercial ports and naval bases had them. The smaller bases used tankers and fuel barges. I suppose the fuel storage capacity can be assumed as barges but leads to problem 2.

Problem 2) Instantaneous naval replenishment in ports. How long does it take to load AKs? Depending on size of port and size of ship, up to a week. So how can a TF with no ammo, fuel, stores (not modelled) fully rearm/restore/refuel in a fraction of a one day turn? I have even seen a TF engage an enemy TF in a friendly base hex, after having had to move to the base hex, and then be a few hexes out, with full loads of fuel and ammo for every ship! Why model the loading of supplies, fuel, personnel on AKs, APs and TKs/AOs but not the ammo and fuel for the same ships. And why differentiate loading times with port size but not when refueling/rearming?

Port size should have some effect on how many and how rapidly ships can rearm and refuel. There were only so many fuel/ammo/stores liters available, not to mention berths. Ports should have operation point maximums in lieu of capacities. Heck, air bases do.

Problem 3) Ammo should be less universal as well. I find it hard to believe that 18.1" ammo was available at any port with supplies. Heck, capture a base with supplies, park the Yammy in there the same day and voila, full magazines of 18.1" ammo. Naval bases should be differentiated from others. We have Naval Base Units but Air Base Units perform same function. Naval stores/ammo should only be available at legitimate naval bases.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 6/18/2004 10:53:59 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 47
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 5:49:43 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: byron13

You never did answer whether everything in excess of 10,000 would be lost immediately, or whether just some percentage. If it's just a percentage, the problem is that the player times things to dump a bunch of fuel oil on the beach of a deserted atoll, the next turn (after only, say, 5% is lost to spoilation) the whole fleet drops in, refuels in one day, and bugs out. While some or all of the remaining fuel may "spoil," the loss of what little is left is worth it for the ability to refuel instantly in a remote part of the ocean.

Extreme example, but that is the perceived problem. Is this not the case?


Yepper, one of them anyway. I'm OK with the fuel storage when one assumes barges are available, but not having op point limits for ports and not differentiating between Naval Bases (specifically ammo availability) and Gilligan's Island when resupplying is more important in my opinion.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 48
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 6:09:01 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Yea we tossed around the port ship limit that wouldn't let you disband ships that didn't fit ... just ran out of time. I liked the idea of port size * 10 = max ships. Makes you more exposed at the smaller bases, but we sorta dealt with this by the way port attacks now work. Port has 10+ ships, bombing goes for ships instead of port.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 49
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 7:42:22 AM   
kaleun

 

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		OK so there is some degree of unreality in the supply and fueling issue on the small bases; but there is a compensatory adjustment in the spoilage and the port air attack feature. Two questions: Does the 10+ ship factor apply in all ports, or just the small ones? and 2nd: Did the testers think that it affected PBEM and/or AI play?

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 50
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 7:49:25 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

OK so there is some degree of unreality in the supply and fueling issue on the small bases; but there is a compensatory adjustment in the spoilage and the port air attack feature. Two questions: Does the 10+ ship factor apply in all ports, or just the small ones? and 2nd: Did the testers think that it affected PBEM and/or AI play?


Some form of op point maximums for bases and limitations for re ammunitioning of ships is needed.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to kaleun)
Post #: 51
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 10:24:58 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yea we tossed around the port ship limit that wouldn't let you disband ships that didn't fit ... just ran out of time. I liked the idea of port size * 10 = max ships. Makes you more exposed at the smaller bases, but we sorta dealt with this by the way port attacks now work. Port has 10+ ships, bombing goes for ships instead of port.


_GREAT_ - I always advocated something like that!

Is there a chance that this will be implemented in patching process after initial release of WitP?


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 52
RE: CV refuling - 6/19/2004 5:05:59 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Anything is possible.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 53
RE: CV refuling - 6/20/2004 10:28:31 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Anything is possible.


Let's hope then...


Loe "Apollo11"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 54
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CV refuling Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.891