Poor man's waypoints

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Poor man's waypoints

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 >> Poor man's waypoints

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:08:30 AM

dkurtz39

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/24/2004
Status: offline

Does the following work in WitP the way it did in PacWar, to get past the lack of waypoints in game?

- Create a TF in San Diego
- Set it's destination for Christmas Island, or in the case of WitP, a hex nearby the island.
- Set the home port to Espiritu Santu

The net result being that the TF will take a backdoor route to it's destination by heading to Christmas Island first , at the expense of some extra time enroute and the requirement that you re-route back to San Diego.

Post #: 1

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:11:32 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

Yes, as long as you have retirement allowed set. For transport TFs, if you select another base as the waypoint (you can select an ocean square if you want) you may also want to set the TF to don't unload. ;-)

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to dkurtz39)

Post #: 2

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:15:55 AM

Vaevictis_386

Posts: 103
Joined: 7/14/2004
Status: offline

Something I seem to have run into --

If you set the waypoint as another base with plenty of fuel, the TF will sit there resupplying itself with fuel every turn -- it does not feel it needs to return to the home base.

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 3

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:21:23 AM

foliveti

Posts: 371
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Buffalo, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vaevictis_386

Something I seem to have run into --

If you set the waypoint as another base with plenty of fuel, the TF will sit there resupplying itself with fuel every turn -- it does not feel it needs to return to the home base.

Actually what I have noticed is that it sets itself to unload, but since you have set the TF to do not unload it just kind of hangs up there in unload mode without actually taking anything off of the ship. I have noticed what you need to do is hit cancel unload.

_____________________________

Frank

(in reply to Vaevictis_386)

Post #: 4

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:25:27 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

I will watch, but I haven't noticed this problem.

SF to Brisbane via Pago-Pago. Destination Pago-Pago. Homebase Brisbane. Set to NOT Unload. Retirement allowed. Should dock one turn in Pago-Pago, then head to Brisbane next turn. Will have to see if it just sticks in Pago-Pago until a manual boot in the rear....

(in reply to foliveti)

Post #: 5

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:28:31 AM

UncleBuck

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

I have found that if I set them to do nto unload they get to the base I am using as a way point, re-fuel if they can then head to where I wanted them. It really helps to get DM's and short legged DD's to teh Solomons.

UB

_____________________________

(in reply to Vaevictis_386)

Post #: 6

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:32:08 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I have found that if I set them to do nto unload they get to the base I am using as a way point, re-fuel if they can then head to where I wanted them. It really helps to get DM's and short legged DD's to teh Solomons.

UB

TK's hauling OIL from US to Oz need a top-off too.

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 7

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:35:19 AM

Toro

Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline

I do the UncleBuck routine, too. I use several stop-over points for ships to transit to, setting them to not unload (for troops, a/c, etc), then jump base-to-base. Then, I have additional supply transports resupplying these bases.

For example, my routes are SF-Palmyra, Palm-Canton Is, Canton-Suva, Suva-Noumea, Noumea to wherever. Then, I have supply convoys between each of these ports, too. So, the SF-Palm dumps lots of supplies and fuel at Palm, then goes home; then another takes these from Palmyra to Canton, then back empty; etc. Takes a lot of ships, but that's all the Allies have at the start. My troop/ac convoys just stop at each base for fuel along the way.

Does take a bit of watching over, but isn't too bad. Besides, keeps supplies/fuel coming in regularly, not every month via a large convoy.

Now, anyone who might play me PBEM in the future, you MUST FORGET THIS...!

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 8

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:43:50 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toro

I do the UncleBuck routine, too. I use several stop-over points for ships to transit to, setting them to not unload (for troops, a/c, etc), then jump base-to-base. Then, I have additional supply transports resupplying these bases.

For example, my routes are SF-Palmyra, Palm-Canton Is, Canton-Suva, Suva-Noumea, Noumea to wherever. Then, I have supply convoys between each of these ports, too. So, the SF-Palm dumps lots of supplies and fuel at Palm, then goes home; then another takes these from Palmyra to Canton, then back empty; etc. Takes a lot of ships, but that's all the Allies have at the start. My troop/ac convoys just stop at each base for fuel along the way.

Does take a bit of watching over, but isn't too bad. Besides, keeps supplies/fuel coming in regularly, not every month via a large convoy.

Now, anyone who might play me PBEM in the future, you MUST FORGET THIS...!

I was about to say....good places for Jap sub concentrations with Jap Sub Doctrine turned off. Subs based out of Truk and later, Rabaul....

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 8/4/2004 10:44:44 PM >

(in reply to Toro)

Post #: 9

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 12:47:35 AM

Toro

Posts: 578
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: 16 miles southeast of Hell (Michigan, i.e.), US
Status: offline

All I can say is, ASW TFs, my friend, ASW TFs...

Your point is quite valid, Zoomie, and once the Japanese get closer, I'll have ASW units near these bases to address the issue (or, shift the route ends, if things get too hairy).

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 10

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 1:15:56 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

All I can say is, ASW TFs, my friend, ASW TFs...

Big BIG ASW Tfs waiting for spite's subs

drool, drool.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Toro)

Post #: 11

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 1:34:38 AM

John B

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Sounds the best way to avoid the tendency of Allied auto-convoys in the S. Pacific to head like lemmings for the Jap Bettys based on Kwajalein.
Incidently re subs, has anyone noticed that after Patch 1.20, if both sides subs are set to historical doctrine, the slaughter of Jap transports which happened in the opening weeks of the campaign game in the pre-patch version doesn't happen at all. In December in my current game, Alled subs sank one Jap ship, looked at a few others, and decided it was too risky to attack. Jap subs also seem rather less in evidence in the patched version as well. Must check on the stats to see if this is closer to reality. If the trend continues, it may give the Japs more shipping to continue their offensive, which in my previous game was definitely running out of steam (or shipping?) by early June.

(in reply to kaleun)

Post #: 12

RE: Poor man's waypoints - 8/5/2004 1:36:45 AM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

Incidently re subs, has anyone noticed that after Patch 1.20, if both sides subs are set to historical doctrine, the slaughter of Jap transports which happened in the opening weeks of the campaign game in the pre-patch version doesn't happen at all. In December in my current game, Alled subs sank one Jap ship, looked at a few others, and decided it was too risky to attack. Jap subs also seem rather less in evidence in the patched version as well. Must check on the stats to see if this is closer to reality. If the trend continues, it may give the Japs more shipping to continue their offensive, which in my previous game was definitely running out of steam (or shipping?) by early June.

That was the desired goal ... Allied sub doctrine wasn't any different the Japanese doctrine when the war started. Never liked the unrestricted warfare on day 1.

(in reply to John B)

Post #: 13