RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders!

RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

John Lansford -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/29/2010 6:40:29 PM)
If you disband the seaplane tender at the base, it's more difficult to be spotted, much less get hit and/or sunk. Again, I find using land units just to operate seaplanes at forward bases a waste of a valuable asset (the BF itself), of which I've never got enough of anyway. I've got plenty of AV-type ships, they're more mobile and flexible, so why not use them?

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/29/2010 9:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford If you disband the seaplane tender at the base, it's more difficult to be spotted, much less get hit and/or sunk. Again, I find using land units just to operate seaplanes at forward bases a waste of a valuable asset (the BF itself), of which I've never got enough of anyway. I've got plenty of AV-type ships, they're more mobile and flexible, so why not use them? I repeat. fly in a fragment [just 6-8 squads]. why not use the tender? as i already said sink and they gone forever. fragment is replaced in a few days. points is another case. a few squads from a fragment is 0 or maybe 1 point. a tender is 6 or more. tender can be spotted moving to its base. flying in fragment can not be spotted until they are in place. how many more reasons you want? avd can be used as a dd for example so they have purpose other than throw away at forward base. more reason? disbanding tender is no more hard to spot than fragment at base. more reason?

wwengr -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/30/2010 4:17:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marty A quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford If you disband the seaplane tender at the base, it's more difficult to be spotted, much less get hit and/or sunk. Again, I find using land units just to operate seaplanes at forward bases a waste of a valuable asset (the BF itself), of which I've never got enough of anyway. I've got plenty of AV-type ships, they're more mobile and flexible, so why not use them? I repeat. fly in a fragment [just 6-8 squads]. why not use the tender? as i already said sink and they gone forever. fragment is replaced in a few days. points is another case. a few squads from a fragment is 0 or maybe 1 point. a tender is 6 or more. tender can be spotted moving to its base. flying in fragment can not be spotted until they are in place. how many more reasons you want? avd can be used as a dd for example so they have purpose other than throw away at forward base. more reason? disbanding tender is no more hard to spot than fragment at base. more reason? Honestly, I find fragmenting for most purposes including this to be gamey. The game may allow it, but it was not intended as such. Units are functional becuase of the multpile elements that make them units. Land some mechanics and they won't be able to sustain operations. They need supply people to order, ship, receive parts; cooks to feed them; commanders to define the mission; armorers to maintain their weapons; medics to take care of medical needs; etc. Just my opinion.

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/30/2010 8:03:52 AM)
Well to wonder is the mind of free peoples. i see no need to commit a 100 av base force to operate 3 seaplanes for 2 or 3 days out of friendly dot base near enemy water. if you think in real war they did not or would not do this then this is your right. i disagree.

John Lansford -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/30/2010 12:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marty A Well to wonder is the mind of free peoples. i see no need to commit a 100 av base force to operate 3 seaplanes for 2 or 3 days out of friendly dot base near enemy water. if you think in real war they did not or would not do this then this is your right. i disagree. No they sent in a seaplane tender, like an AVD. For example, when the Japanese considered using French Frigate Shoals as a refueling base for a seaplane bombing attack on PH, they called it off when the sub spotted an AVD already there operating PBY's. I agree it's gamey to fly in a small handful of aviation support squads from a BF and think that's all it takes to operate a seaplane or 4. Fuel, spare parts, tools, communication devices, supplies, etc, all flown in by transport? What if there's no airbase (level 0)? Use the AVD or other tender instead of fragmenting BF's into tiny little bits like that.

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/30/2010 4:04:53 PM)
japan does not have avd. your whole mind set appears to be only what ally can do with no regard to japan. in above example is case in point. japan had submarine designed to refuel airplanes for this exact purpose meaning fly in patrol airplanes for quick mission and leave. since game does not allow japan to do this next best thing is fly in supply and fragment - search - and leave. stop looking at game from green colored glasses.

wwengr -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/30/2010 4:49:45 PM)
The Japanese CS type ships perform the function of the Allied AVD, but can do it better. The CS is much more versatile than an AVD and can act sort of like a CVE. As noted, there are also the submarines that launch float planes. The Japanese player has AV's available. Akitsushima Kamoi Kamikawa Maru Kimikawa Maru Kunikawa Maru Kiyokawa Maru Sagara Maru Sanuki Maru Additionally, any of the 26 Husimi Cargo xAK ships can convert to AV's if you choose.

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 3:46:13 AM)
again, why would a person use a tender [av] when he can fly in [or fast transport] a base unit [or fragment of one]? japan has many av support companies [8 av] that are perfect for this. why give the ally points for sinking ships out on the fringes? and cs ships are far too valuable with your carrier forces to be wasted as seaplane bases. they can search while move not have to be parked at island.

Bradley7735 -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 5:43:34 AM)
Thanks wwengr for these threads on auxilaries. Even though I've played the game from way back to Pacific War (did GG do the C64 south pacific game? loved that one too), I still find out stuff I didn't know, or stuff I knew and forgot.

wwengr -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 5:54:30 AM)
Japan's total aviation support squads is only a little more than the total number of land-based aircraft. Given, as others have noted, excess aviation support is required to keep all aircraft operational at base, the aircraft can change bases much faster than the aviation support, and the necesity to man bases for effective transfer of aircraft; many players would choose to make efficient use of their AV ships. Doing so will: maximize the number of ready aircraft, minimize operational losses, help maintain a higher operational tempo, and make most effective use of air resources. There are a variety of things you can do to utilize AV ships depending on style of play. I'm with John Lansford on this. When I set up a forward scouting base with an AV it is highly mobile. When the scouts spot a TF inbound and there are no firendly TF operations nearby, the AV can steam away whiile the aircraft transfer away. My experience in moving a base force in is that the squads do not last long if they are not properly supported. Additionally, the squads eat additional supplies. The tactic of an AV operating at a remote base is a somewhat exceptional case. I use them to operate patrol planes in the sea lanes between the front and the Home Islands and I use them to operate remote patrols on the margins. More often than not, they augment operations at a base that has a base force and other assets performing missions including CAP. The principle purpose being to reduce the resource demand on the precious aviation support squads. Regardless, judicious use of assets while keeping everything employed in a usefull manner is a key to success. Everything must serve a purpose.

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 8:05:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr Japan's total aviation support squads is only a little more than the total number of land-based aircraft. Given, as others have noted, excess aviation support is required to keep all aircraft operational at base, the aircraft can change bases much faster than the aviation support, and the necesity to man bases for effective transfer of aircraft; many players would choose to make efficient use of their AV ships. Doing so will: maximize the number of ready aircraft, minimize operational losses, help maintain a higher operational tempo, and make most effective use of air resources. There are a variety of things you can do to utilize AV ships depending on style of play. I'm with John Lansford on this. When I set up a forward scouting base with an AV it is highly mobile. When the scouts spot a TF inbound and there are no firendly TF operations nearby, the AV can steam away whiile the aircraft transfer away. My experience in moving a base force in is that the squads do not last long if they are not properly supported. Additionally, the squads eat additional supplies. The tactic of an AV operating at a remote base is a somewhat exceptional case. I use them to operate patrol planes in the sea lanes between the front and the Home Islands and I use them to operate remote patrols on the margins. More often than not, they augment operations at a base that has a base force and other assets performing missions including CAP. The principle purpose being to reduce the resource demand on the precious aviation support squads. Regardless, judicious use of assets while keeping everything employed in a usefull manner is a key to success. Everything must serve a purpose. Not even remotely true. 250 av support is maximum needed at any base regardless of number airplanes present so any level 5 or larger airbase only need 250. level 9 base means unlimited airplane stacking. smart players use this. i find i have 2,5 to 3 times as many av support as aircraft. also not really need 1 to 1 av support to airplane in slow area. can get by easily with much less. i typically operate around 100 engines worth of aircraft from bases with only 24 av support. trick is how many fly. if outpost with zero and betty on naval attack with 20% search and 10% train for example all airplanes always ready to fly. i operate 12 plane lilly asw groups with 8 av support at base [1:3 on engines] with 80% fly each turn. and if use fragment at forward base you not use any 'real' av support as if killed it replaced. as for keeping things employed in useful manner for success this too not true really. how many amc do players get? in game you get more of these ships [both sides] than you get mines in game. so players use for other things other than what they were really for as 1 example. ag another useless 'tender' better to use as ak. the only 'useful' tenders are the same tenders that witp had. the new ones added have no 'real' function and really could be eliminated from game with no bad effect. ed: besides supreme commander should not have to worry about tender and what ship is in what repair mode. in this witp was better game. search arc same thing. supreme commander should not have to tell each squadron commander where to look for enemy each day. and how many airplane to fly. should he have option to? sure or at least probably. should he HAVE to? no.

John Lansford -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 12:57:29 PM)
If you thik WitP was the better game, I'd suggest you go back to playing it then. For yet another example you appear willing to ignore, I've got AVD's or AV's at Johnston and Canton islands to operate PBY's. Since the AI has shown a tendency to attack those bases, I don't have to risk land units to another assault, and the ships can move away as needed. I've got BF's at Palmyra and Christmas to help transfer planes further south. I find myself needing BF's in more places than I have available units, but have plenty of ships that can operate seaplanes. And yes, my comments are from an Allied bias; it's what I'm familiar with so that's what my comments are based on.

wwengr -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 2:08:45 PM)
John, Marty is refering to his style of play as the Japanese player, so I do understand what he is saying and don't say he shouldn't play that way. As I say, it is "style of play" and Marty chooses to exclusively use BF's. Nothing wrong with that other than I wouldn't play that way. Regardless, the objective of this thread is to discuss how tenders can be useful to a player who chooses to use them. Playing either side, I have found all of the tenders to be useful, but that may just be me. I always look at all of my assets and put them to work. One piece of factual information in Marty's reply that is worthy of discussion is: quote: ORIGINAL: Marty A ...250 av support is maximum needed at any base regardless of number airplanes present so any level 5 or larger airbase only need 250... from the manual: quote: 16.5 BASE FORCE REPLACEMENTS Base Forces also receive replacements just as any ground unit does, but their expected full strength level for the computer player can change during the game. Every friendly airfield with at least one Base Force unit at the airfield will pick one Base Force to be its primary Base Force. The primary Base Force will have its expected full strength value for aviation support points change so that its expected value equals 30 times the current size of the airfield (never greater than 250). This change in the expected value can cause replacement units to be built even when losses have not been taken. This will provide sufficient aviation points to support growing airfields. I am pretty sure that the 250 aviation support limit is nothing other than a limit on the growth of Base Forces for the computer player (AI). Human player BF's do not grow like that. As far as I know, this has nothing to do with the ability of aviation support squads to support aircraft at a large base. Does anyone have the comprehensive answer to that?

wwengr -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 2:13:40 PM)
As the Japanese player, I have always found it to be very difficult to build bases to size 9 or larger. The only ones on the map at the beginning are Hiroshima, Kobe, and Tokyo. Osaka/Kyoto and Takao are the only ones that are size 8. Only a few places have an airfield SPS of 6 or 7 that allows build up to size 9 and almost none in the Central Pacific do. I have also found that the engineering effort, time, and supplies to build a base to size 9 is really big, so I have built almost none. It's a large pipeline of troops and supplies that need to be moved through harms way As a result, I find AV Ships useful both for supporting remote operations of patrol planes and extending the capacity of bases that have both patrol/float planes and other planes.

Mike Solli -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 2:28:35 PM)
Something else to add concerning aviation support. The definition of Aviation Support (on page 205) is: The amount of aviation support required in the hex for all air units in the hex to function at full efficiency. It sounds to me that if you have 1 support for each plane, they can function at full efficiency. You don't need large numbers of excess avn spt. Concerning the alleged 250 avn spt maximum, I don't think it applies to AE. I just looked in my game and I have a base with 411 avn spt. In WitP, when you had more than 250 avn spt in a base, it showed only 250 for the maximum avn spt. In AE, it shows the full amount, 411 in this case. I don't think the maximum 250 avn spt applies in AE. Just a guess though....

Mike Solli -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 2:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr As the Japanese player, I have always found it to be very difficult to build bases to size 9 or larger. It is impossible to build a base beyond level 9.

wwengr -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 2:50:49 PM)
AG Ships... There is another thread that discusses this in detail. The Japanese have 5 of these at start and the ability to build just a few more. They can get a lot more by converting Ehime, Kiso, Kasu, Miyati, Daigen, and Gozan class ships (AK hulls). The question is: should they? The definitive answer is: that depends. Some players find little or no use for the AG. For those players, the answer is obviously no. I personally, like to use them. They can rearm ASW groups, small escorts, and patrol craft. They can repair these ships and craft too. I like to have a few AG's in forward bases so I can take care of that pesky system damage that accumulates over time as well as the few that survive contact with the enemy with bumps and bruises. As far as the conversions go though, there is a real trade-off with most of the ship classes. Troop capacity goes away and cargo capacity gets lower. The only conversion that results in little net loss is conversion of the Kiso-E xAKL ships. They have low cargo capacity to start with (795) and no troop capacity. They lose only 5 cargo capacity to convert to an AG (790). I convert a few of these, in case I need them as AG's and continue to employee them as AK's until they are needed. I don't think it is worth it to convert any of the others.

rockmedic109 -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 6:13:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Something else to add concerning aviation support. The definition of Aviation Support (on page 205) is: The amount of aviation support required in the hex for all air units in the hex to function at full efficiency. It sounds to me that if you have 1 support for each plane, they can function at full efficiency. You don't need large numbers of excess avn spt. Concerning the alleged 250 avn spt maximum, I don't think it applies to AE. I just looked in my game and I have a base with 411 avn spt. In WitP, when you had more than 250 avn spt in a base, it showed only 250 for the maximum avn spt. In AE, it shows the full amount, 411 in this case. I don't think the maximum 250 avn spt applies in AE. Just a guess though.... I think I remember is showing aviation support higher than 250 but stopped at 250 for the listed Aviation support required.

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 9:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford If you thik WitP was the better game, I'd suggest you go back to playing it then. Who said i ever stopped? and as for the 250 maximum i have 771 airplanes at this base and not 1 of them is not ready. they are all on 100% training: [image]local://upfiles/32513/D44001015FC3498687F3F81354B5EFD8.jpg[/image]

witpqs -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 9:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Something else to add concerning aviation support. The definition of Aviation Support (on page 205) is: The amount of aviation support required in the hex for all air units in the hex to function at full efficiency. It sounds to me that if you have 1 support for each plane, they can function at full efficiency. You don't need large numbers of excess avn spt. Concerning the alleged 250 avn spt maximum, I don't think it applies to AE. I just looked in my game and I have a base with 411 avn spt. In WitP, when you had more than 250 avn spt in a base, it showed only 250 for the maximum avn spt. In AE, it shows the full amount, 411 in this case. I don't think the maximum 250 avn spt applies in AE. Just a guess though.... I think I remember is showing aviation support higher than 250 but stopped at 250 for the listed Aviation support required. Me too.

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 9:15:54 PM)
here is partial of the planes there: [image]local://upfiles/32513/AA8FBD458E0843DF960DE5DC617260B1.jpg[/image]

JWE -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 9:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr As a result, I find AV Ships useful both for supporting remote operations of patrol planes and extending the capacity of bases that have both patrol/float planes and other planes. Yes indeed. There's some interesting implication things going on, that we planned for, and that seem to be happening just as tooth fairy said. You are on the right track wwengr. Keep it up and ignore the slings and arrows of outrageous 9 year olds. Ciao. John

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 9:45:34 PM)
mature response from dev. not unexpected from him. getting back to what i was saying i see point in most tenders [and have said this many times even in this thread] of the tenders that were in witp. it is new ones in ae that are worthless and unneeded. they add nothing to the game. just more meaningless details that take players away from the game and drive out further those that are new to the hobby.

Nomad -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 10:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marty A mature response from dev. not unexpected from him. getting back to what i was saying i see point in most tenders [and have said this many times even in this thread] of the tenders that were in witp. it is new ones in ae that are worthless and unneeded. they add nothing to the game. just more meaningless details that take players away from the game and drive out further those that are new to the hobby. This is the problem. You don't think they are worthwhile and that is fine, you don't have to use them. But, this thread was started as a place to discuss how to best use these assets. I use all of these ships when I play and I would have like it if you had not polluted the discussion with your negative views.

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 10:50:59 PM)
Not negative just saying what is real. as for example is very useful. i would say invaluable to both sides. that is hardly 'negative'. the problem with thread is it not say what alternative is. for example ag will reload 5 inch guns and less. level 1 port with 20 naval support do same thing. ag will repair small boat major damage. has anyone ever seen a small boat with major damage? i have not. so i just be real. people want to use these things then fine but thread make it sound like you missing out lots if not using them. i say truth is you really do not need as naval support works better faster and more efficient. are there some cases where one of these odd tenders will be useful? sure. but that is the exception rather than the rule. you want to use tenders rather than naval support be my guest. but the thread was started [i think anyway] to give people that do not use or new people a 'guide' to use of them. and the truth is the first choice should always be naval support. as for pollution that is getting carried away is it not?

wwengr -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 10:51:10 PM)
Guys. Let's try to keep this cool. I don't want to get my thread locked. I would like this to focus on uses for tenders.

witpqs -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 11:07:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marty A as for pollution that is getting carried away is it not? He might have been referring to this remark: quote: ORIGINAL: Marty A mature response from dev. not unexpected from him. wwengr is right - he has sponsored a great thread here. Let's keep to the subject.

jwilkerson -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 11:23:42 PM)
I've received a couple of complaints about this thread. I've read through the entire thread. I think some of the comments and behaviors (by more than one person) are on the border of violating forum rules - but by our standards - not clearly across. I would suggest that everyone back away from the border. If you start testing it - you might be surprised [:-].

Marty A -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 11:27:10 PM)
Well if he referred to my remark then he should have something even worse to say about jwe response no? [:D] the problem with the thread is not what wwengr is saying in my opinion. he only copied right from rules and rules do not always work like it is in game. i speak from game experience [note his lack of understanding the 250 av support thing]. not saying is bad idea to say what they all do but really it still does not answer a lot of questions. as i asked earlier has anyone ever seen major damage on small ships? i have not. if no one else has either than really the only 'real' use for ag is to reload depth charges at a small front line port. now that would be up to an individual player to determine if that is useful to him. in my way of thinking if you need depth charge reloads bad enough at a front base where you would risk a tender being sunk then maybe you should not be there to begin with [:D] as i said and shown in other thread [is this correct?] ar is not working correctly. again not reading manual here but actual playing of the game shows this. ard is useful but the thread does not say that it only moves 1 hex per day and sinks easily if hit so there again you want to stay back out of any bomb range with it. if thread say these things then in my opinion it is useful but because these were left out i think someone should say something. not being negative just being REAL. agp another tender in old game used in same way. ao used in same way as old game also. ae [and ake] changes however. ae can only reload based on size of the ae. but in order to see what it will reload you have to look in editor rather than have this printed in rules. how helpful is that? again thread does not say what ae can reload what. not helpful at all.

jwilkerson -> RE: What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders! (1/31/2010 11:36:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marty A Well if he referred to my remark then he should have something even worse to say about jwe response no? [:D] Could you re-state this communication for clarity?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375