More on the Transport Poverty Thing : Its almost July 43, 80% of transport sits in PH

More on the Transport Poverty Thing : Its almost July 43, 80% of transport sits in PH (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support

Message

dgaad -> More on the Transport Poverty Thing : Its almost July 43, 80% of transport sits in PH (7/7/2002 1:51:46 AM)
Its nearly July 43 in my AI game. Here is the distribution of transport for the Allies : In Theater (total for all operational areas) : 20 APs 16 AKs total supply transport capacity is something on the order of 50K. In Pearl 24 APs 88 AKs Thats around 80 % of all supply transport capacity sitting in Pearl. I can't build up for a blitz in the latter half of 43 now. Game was started with all historical ship committment levels. Current ship committment probability from Pearl is MODERATE. Current VP totals : Allied : 16699 Japan : 7582

dgaad -> (7/7/2002 2:24:28 AM)
Update : just got a significant release of ships. All DDs, 1BB, a sub, and some cruisers. No transport :(

UndercoverNotChickenSalad -> (7/7/2002 2:42:59 AM)
Ok, we know how many you have, how many are at PH. How many are on the bottom? :p

dgaad -> (7/7/2002 3:04:36 AM)
From May 1 42 - 29 June 43 : Allied supply transport losses 11 APs 5 AKs

dgaad -> (7/7/2002 3:11:19 AM)
In Scenario 17, the Allies start with : 11 APs 12 AKs I've lost 11 APs 5 AKs As of 29 June 43 supply transport in theater is : 20 APs 16 Aks Thats a net gain in almost 14 months of +20 APs + 9 AKs And, as I said, currently sitting in Pearl are : 24 APs 88 AKs AP Breakdown -About 40% of available APs have been sent from Pearl. -60% of available APs remain uncommitted. AK Breakdown -about 10% of available AKs have been sent from Pearl. -90% of available AKs remain uncommitted.

UndercoverNotChickenSalad -> (7/7/2002 3:40:39 AM)
And 33% are sitting on the bottom :p

dgaad -> (7/7/2002 4:06:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by UndercoverNotChickenSalad [B]And 33% are sitting on the bottom :p [/B][/QUOTE] In a mathematical system where 2 + 2 = 4, and other equations like that, your figure would be totally wrong. I apologize, I thought you were genuinely interested in this topic.

UndercoverNotChickenSalad -> (7/7/2002 4:50:36 AM)
Actually it's 100%, since 11 of the original AP they gave you are now reefs. And you wonder why they don't send even more? :p

dgaad -> (7/7/2002 4:58:16 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by UndercoverNotChickenSalad [B]Actually it's 100%, since 11 of the original AP they gave you are now reefs. And you wonder why they don't send even more? :p [/B][/QUOTE] And this logic translates into the AK issue . . . not at all?

UndercoverNotChickenSalad -> (7/7/2002 5:12:35 AM)
44% of your original tankers are subaqueous. I don't have enough tankers ! The game is broken ! erik ! ERIK ! EEEEEERRRRRIIIIIIIIKKKKKK !!!!!!!

Erik Rutins -> Um... (7/7/2002 11:50:04 AM)
No need for all that, UNCS (by the way, please accept this award for the most bizarre forum name I've seen in a long while...) :) Dgaad, I understand the problem. I haven't seen it myself despite playing through the long campaign a few times. However, I know that the reinforcement routine can at times focus on certain ship types to the exclusion of others for far too long. I think the best thing would be something along the lines of the previously mentioned prioritization, which would allow the player to in effect request general ship types and have a better chance of getting them. However, I'm sure that's a ways off given the current patch plans. In the meantime, keep sending back everything you can spare and see if it shakes loose some more transports. Regards, - Erik

dgaad -> (7/7/2002 12:11:40 PM)
I'm guessing that the MAIN reason I'm not getting anything transport-wise, is because I'm winning in victory points by a margin of greater than 2-1, therefore higher command sees no need to reinforce the theater. It might be fun to send EVERY ship back to Pearl, and see what happens.

UndercoverNotChickenSalad -> (7/7/2002 9:59:32 PM)
"No need for all that, UNCS" I'm sorry. You're right. I was joking but he got sporty and I got sporty too because I'm such a jerk. Anyway, if dgaad isn't angry I'm not either.

dgaad -> (7/8/2002 12:06:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by UndercoverNotChickenSalad [B] Anyway, if dgaad isn't angry I'm not either. [/B][/QUOTE] Never was.

Ron Saueracker -> Dgaad (7/8/2002 12:33:07 AM)
That little exchange was hilarious. Dgaad. I'm in May 43 #19 and I've only had a few AP and AK losses, about half of yours. My problem is a whole bushel more were bent half outa shape by a surprise IJN CV strike (could not believe it when it happened, but was more surprised by the complete failure of my LR CAP to intercept the strike) and are being rebuilt.;) So, I'm a little short of merchant bottoms but LST are doing sterling service. I've also been downgrading backwater bases so that Mr. Roberts might pay a visit once every couple of months. Next time, I'm going to think twice about sending back APs and AKs unless they are in the redest of red text. Those ships damaged holding onto PM and GG would be handier in port than in PH right about now. I've got lots of AOs that I should risk sending back for more AP/AK. :cool:

dgaad -> (7/8/2002 1:29:33 AM)
RON : LSTs do NOT carry supply so far as I know.

Ron Saueracker -> Hmmm... (7/8/2002 1:40:25 AM)
I've been sending troops and supplies in a mixed convoy of LST, AP and AKs. Ya might be right, but if they can carry a tank, why not supplies? Have to check the manual.:confused:

dgaad -> (7/8/2002 3:21:19 AM)
Ron : you don't need to check the manual. Try to load supply in an LST. Nothing happens. EDIT CORRECTION : LSTs do carry supply.

jww60 -> (7/8/2002 3:57:53 AM)
Could the game be using the transports at PH to keep Noumea and Brisbane supplied? Just a thought. -- Jeff

segorn -> (7/8/2002 4:02:06 AM)
I'm not too concerned with whether there are the proper number of transports in theatre or not. The concern is that you cannot supply the proper number of bases. Either this means: A) Bases are using more supply than is historically appropriate. B) The game is giving us less transport assets than is historically accurate. Personally I'm inclined to think its a mix of the two e.g. in-game transport levels usually fall below historical norms and bases use too much supplies.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.59375