Trade routes for Japan

Trade routes for Japan (Full Version)

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

Message

BJStone -> Trade routes for Japan (3/20/2011 8:16:26 PM)
What trade routes/ports do you use for suppling Japan with oil/resources? It looks like some players run trade routes in the DEI to Singapore or Saigon and then back to Japan? How much do you send to China? Does it matter where I unload TFs in Japan? Will everything just go to the factories that need the resources/oil/supplies? Does anyone use the Auto Convoy Option? Thanks in advance for any help! BJ

Puhis -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/21/2011 8:01:56 AM)
Trade routes are classified information, AFBs might be reading... [;)] I sent some oil and fuel to Manchuria, if Port Arthur refinery is lacking oil and HI centers are lacking fuel. I doesn't matter where you unload in Japan, all islands (except Hokkaido) are connected. Obviously nearest big ports are best places to unload. Nagasaki, Kagoshima etc. I don't use auto convoy system at all. IMO it's just doesn't work properly.

jonreb31 -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/21/2011 8:27:40 AM)
Autoconvoy has never found a use for me, but then again I'm a micro addict. Hokkaido is a major center for resources, convoys have to be running 24/7 (since there is no land connection to mainland Japan) for the Japanese economy to survive. Deeper trade route info won't come easily except for misinformation purposes -- the AFB is watching!

BJStone -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/21/2011 2:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Trade routes are classified information, AFBs might be reading... [;)] I sent some oil and fuel to Manchuria, if Port Arthur refinery is lacking oil and HI centers are lacking fuel. I doesn't matter where you unload in Japan, all islands (except Hokkaido) are connected. Obviously nearest big ports are best places to unload. Nagasaki, Kagoshima etc. I don't use auto convoy system at all. IMO it's just doesn't work properly. I was hoping that was the answer in regards to unloading in Japan. Do you send anything to Bangkok or Shanghia? If I unload at Port Arthur then resources/oil will get to where they need to go? I was reading that creating larger ports/airfields at a base draws supplies to it? I'm still a little unsure about this push/pull thing. The type of road/rail between bases still limits how much I can get to a non-port base per day - right? How much are you trying to pull from Hokkaido to send to the main island of Japan per month? 100,000 resources? More? Thanks for the information/thoughts. I wouldn't want anyone to put their game at risk. Does anyone know of a good thread/link that discusses Japanese resources and the economy? Regards, BJ

Puhis -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/21/2011 3:39:24 PM)
China/Manchuria produce enough resources, but are eventuelly lacking oil and fuel. In my PBEM game I have problems with inland HI centers (Harbin, Peiping etc.) that seems to run out of fuel easily. But I've made mistakes, for example expanding ports I really don't need... I try to pull everything from Hokkaido, it's a major resource center and minor oil center. But Hokkaido needs some fuel, if you want to run heavy industry there. One idea I'm going to try next is that I use small tankers to ship oil from Hokkaido to Manchuria to keep PA refinery running.

EUBanana -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/21/2011 5:51:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Trade routes are classified information, AFBs might be reading... [;)] [:'(]

PresterJohn001 -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/21/2011 7:04:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Trade routes are classified information, AFBs might be reading... [;)] [:'(] I can confirm that Resources, Oil and Fuel are shipped from a location to somewhere else. The only shipping lane i can comment on is the Rangoon to Rabual one that goes around Sumatra , Java and then on the long way around Australia right past Perth finally calling at Rabual [:'(]

PaxMondo -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/22/2011 3:04:58 AM)
The truth is that you shipping lanes have to move, particularly in PBEM. You need to have several at least, 6 or more is better, that you can switch to. The allies will find whatever you have and it isn't likely that you will be able to project sufficient ASW the entire way. A big savior is if you can get the RR clear from Singers to Fusan. If you get the entirely clear and start pulling from Fusan, your trade routes are pretty safe. Of course your opponent knows this and will try to continuously interupt that route.

Marcus_Antonius -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/23/2011 2:29:43 PM)
I have heard about the RR from Singapore to Fusan before. Surely its an urban myth? I mean it doesn not appear on the maps. :).

offenseman -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/23/2011 4:07:45 PM)
It is not RR all the way, there are some road hexes in the mix as well.

PaxMondo -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/24/2011 6:09:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman It is not RR all the way, there are some road hexes in the mix as well. Correct, but if you clear it, then you can pull all the way and save all that fuel in transport. It's a pretty big deal.

crsutton -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/24/2011 10:06:16 PM)
It is a know historical fact that Japan was able to move over 40 billion tons of supply over that route. [8\|] [image]local://upfiles/8095/9CA45261422142C084EFC6F5E48956EA.gif[/image]

Puhis -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/25/2011 8:32:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman It is not RR all the way, there are some road hexes in the mix as well. Correct, but if you clear it, then you can pull all the way and save all that fuel in transport. It's a pretty big deal. If this is true, the model is definitely borked. That pull should not happen, no matter what... [X(]

PaxMondo -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/25/2011 2:53:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman It is not RR all the way, there are some road hexes in the mix as well. Correct, but if you clear it, then you can pull all the way and save all that fuel in transport. It's a pretty big deal. If this is true, the model is definitely borked. That pull should not happen, no matter what... [X(] Uhh, why?

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/25/2011 3:41:18 PM)
No rl capability? There's a reason things were shipped from Singapore not railroaded out of there. Similar to pulling supplies over to China from Burma. Possible gamewise not rl wise.

Alfred -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/25/2011 4:39:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk No rl capability? There's a reason things were shipped from Singapore not railroaded out of there. Similar to pulling supplies over to China from Burma. Possible gamewise not rl wise. Surely, in view of the extreme abstraction and simplification of the game's logistics compared to the real world, it is hyperbole to claim, as did another poster, that this demonstrates the game is borked. Using that criterion then the only conclusion is that the entire logistics model, not just the railroad transfer of resources along the coast up to Port Arthur, is borked. Why does anyone who holds that view even bother to play the game. I see no grounds for criticising the game on this point, unless you want to argue the wastage cost per hex of transferring any supply/fuel/raw material is too low everywhere. Alfred

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/25/2011 4:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred quote: ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk No rl capability? There's a reason things were shipped from Singapore not railroaded out of there. Similar to pulling supplies over to China from Burma. Possible gamewise not rl wise. Surely, in view of the extreme abstraction and simplification of the game's logistics compared to the real world, it is hyperbole to claim, as did another poster, that this demonstrates the game is borked. Using that criterion then the only conclusion is that the entire logistics model, not just the railroad transfer of resources along the coast up to Port Arthur, is borked. Why does anyone who holds that view even bother to play the game. I see no grounds for criticising the game on this point, unless you want to argue the wastage cost per hex of transferring any supply/fuel/raw material is too low everywhere. Alfred I never claimed the game was borked nor did I criticize it. I don't use the logistical system to pull supplies over areas I know that they couldn't in rl. Problem solved. That's why I bother to play the game.

Puhis -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/25/2011 9:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman It is not RR all the way, there are some road hexes in the mix as well. Correct, but if you clear it, then you can pull all the way and save all that fuel in transport. It's a pretty big deal. If this is true, the model is definitely borked. That pull should not happen, no matter what... [X(] Uhh, why? Because I have a silly idea that this game is about War in the Pacific. Not Magical Mystery Tour of oil and fuel. If that kind of pull is possible, I think it's gamey to use it. Isn't the basic idea of the war to fight for the shipping lines?

FatR -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/25/2011 10:25:01 PM)
China needs constant influx of supply to keep offensive operations running (as one should keep them). I find that one 50k convoy shuttling supplies to Shanghai is sufficient for this purpose (assuming Japanese grab vulnerable industry centers in China early). Unloading can be done in any port of sufficient size on Honshu or Kyushu (they have a land connection). Under current patch I see resources distributing themselves according to needs fairly well, assuming there are no general shortages. If some city reports a shortage (HI centers in occupied China/Manchukuo can easily run out of fuel), just ship more fuel/resources to the region and it will usually go away. Auto-convoy is a great way to give your opponent points[8\|]. Maybe it can work for Allies late in the war, when they have tons of escorts. Japanese players should avoid it, except as a deliberate handicap on themselves.

PaxMondo -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/26/2011 12:48:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: offenseman It is not RR all the way, there are some road hexes in the mix as well. Correct, but if you clear it, then you can pull all the way and save all that fuel in transport. It's a pretty big deal. If this is true, the model is definitely borked. That pull should not happen, no matter what... [X(] Uhh, why? Because I have a silly idea that this game is about War in the Pacific. Not Magical Mystery Tour of oil and fuel. If that kind of pull is possible, I think it's gamey to use it. Isn't the basic idea of the war to fight for the shipping lines? Ah, I see where we differ. My understanding of the history is that IJ never secured this land transport lane. The allies were always able to exert some control along some portion of it. Is this perception in error? If the IJ had secured this, which a player can if he commits resources to it and the Allied player is lax, there is nothing in the phex data that I am aware of in error and the route could have been used. I can say this with some level of personal knowledge. I've had a Mark I eyeball on most (not all) of this route via auto/train/bus back a "few" years. Yes, from Singers to Pusan ... not one trip, but across a decade or so. If available, would it have been used? Not sure. RR is really efficient transport. Not as efficient as sea lift in peace time, no question. In war, factoring in the required security assets? Not so clear to me that overland might be preferred. I do know that rail road cars are a lot cheaper to build than ships, a few guys on roof tops with some 7.7 mmMG a lot easier to come by than ASW assets, and subs don't do well in mountains. Balancing this you have to come up with a lot of cheap labor to do track maintenance which granted sea lanes do not require. Just my opinion here. YMMV.

BJStone -> RE: Trade routes for Japan (3/26/2011 3:47:26 PM)
Thanks to everyone that posted thoughts on this. I suppose if I'm aggressive in China the supply needs go up and if I'm fairly passive they remain low? Right now I think I hear everyone saying to send supplies & oil to Shanghai & Port Arthur and send oil to Sapporo? Expand Airfield and Forts at Harbin (or any inland base with factories) to pull resources? And set Supplies Required to 25k at bases that have factories? Each base along the path from a port to an inland base needs to have supplies in excess of base needs for supply flow to continue inland? And supplies are still limited by the type of roads/rail available? If I set Auto Convoy @ all bases in Japan & Hokkaido does this help keep base levels where they need to be for production? Each base with factories needs at least 10k supplies to produce engines/airframes - right?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.062012