RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (Full Version)

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



Message


witpqs -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 12:06:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I thought "do not refuel" only worked at ports?

Interesting. Doesn't the AI override when you reach bingo fuel?

Other "tricks":

-Retire
-Chose a start hex that allow the TF to reach the objective at night
-Normal speed
-Set home base to something close so the AI calculates fuel reserves differently
-Choose the shortest ingress/egress (if it is a close call) even if you have to cross enemy hexes or coastal hexes
-Detach escorts that are too low on fuel


So, after reading the manual on the fuel consumption... it is not actually the Full Speed setting itself that determines how much fuel your ships burn. It is the number of hexes moved. I will set to Full to make sure my guys retire as far as possible from the base, although typically the danger area is around only 3-5 hexes from the target base (assuming I knocked out its airfield) so Mission usually suffices.

Also, the home base changing to something else so you can control the direction of the retirement is good.

Direct/Absolute routing settings. Coastal as needed (e.g., to avoid certain hexes).

Do NOT use waypoints.



If you set to "Do Not Refuel", no ships will refuel ever. Even if they hit 0 Endurance.

That is false.
- They do refuel "at sea". Even when in port you will notice that the "Refuel at sea" button works.
- They do refuel at waypoints for each waypoint that has refuel instructions. This is true even if a waypoint is at a port.

I do these things routinely and they work fine without glitches.

Just to avoid confusion, note that I am not referring to anything specific to bombardment missions (I think the discussion started out regarding how bombardment TF behave).




Cap Mandrake -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 3:07:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
- They do refuel at waypoints for each waypoint that has refuel instructions. This is true even if a waypoint is at a port.


Prease to exprain. witpqs-san mean waypoints on protted path?




witpqs -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 3:09:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
- They do refuel at waypoints for each waypoint that has refuel instructions. This is true even if a waypoint is at a port.


Prease to exprain. witpqs-san mean waypoints on protted path?


Hai!




Lokasenna -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 5:36:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I thought "do not refuel" only worked at ports?

Interesting. Doesn't the AI override when you reach bingo fuel?

Other "tricks":

-Retire
-Chose a start hex that allow the TF to reach the objective at night
-Normal speed
-Set home base to something close so the AI calculates fuel reserves differently
-Choose the shortest ingress/egress (if it is a close call) even if you have to cross enemy hexes or coastal hexes
-Detach escorts that are too low on fuel


So, after reading the manual on the fuel consumption... it is not actually the Full Speed setting itself that determines how much fuel your ships burn. It is the number of hexes moved. I will set to Full to make sure my guys retire as far as possible from the base, although typically the danger area is around only 3-5 hexes from the target base (assuming I knocked out its airfield) so Mission usually suffices.

Also, the home base changing to something else so you can control the direction of the retirement is good.

Direct/Absolute routing settings. Coastal as needed (e.g., to avoid certain hexes).

Do NOT use waypoints.



If you set to "Do Not Refuel", no ships will refuel ever. Even if they hit 0 Endurance.

That is false.
- They do refuel "at sea". Even when in port you will notice that the "Refuel at sea" button works.
- They do refuel at waypoints for each waypoint that has refuel instructions. This is true even if a waypoint is at a port.

I do these things routinely and they work fine without glitches.

Just to avoid confusion, note that I am not referring to anything specific to bombardment missions (I think the discussion started out regarding how bombardment TF behave).


I meant the automatic refueling when the ships cross their endurance threshold check for current fuel vs. fuel needed for mission. Not the manual refueling that players can do by clicking the button. I've never actually hit bingo fuel doing this, but have had ships get down into the double digits on Endurance on multiple occasions (while the BBs are still up around 8K - plenty of reserve so the auto transfer was not taking place, as intended).

However, with Do Not Refuel set, I can confirm that the Replenish TF from Port button is greyed out until you remove the setting.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 9:14:58 AM)

1/7/44

Big Tent: Mostly logistics today, with good progress made. See map for details.

Roller Coaster: KB and other "power" in the Marshalls, plus a stout enemy TF up near Marcus. John is shifting weight forward. Why? Where's he going? See map for details.

Burma: For most of the New Year, Allied 4EB have been working over enemy strategic targets in Burma and vicinity. I think the oil production in Magwe is all but shut down. The oil refineries at Bangkok and Rangoon have been hit pretty hard. And some other targets (light industry mainly) have also been targeted. I'm not sure whether this has a meaningful affect on John. The hope was to draw a representative portion of his fighters this way. Thus far I don't think he's done so.


[image]local://upfiles/8143/21A7FD6EE8104C47826B886AD6787976.jpg[/image]




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 9:26:28 AM)

SigInt that 116th Div. is prepping for Morotai. This is the only intel I've received during the campaign that a significant enemy unit is prepping for a Big Tent base. Morotai makes sense since it is the most exposed base and the one that poses the most proximate threat to the Philippines. The garrison is anchored by 5th Indian Div., which has 450 AV, 71% experience, and modern equipment. The base won't fall unless supply becomes and issue. The base currently has 50k with ships carrying another 40k in port unloading. Supply won't become an issue unless John employs the Kaigun to bombard over an extended period. If he does that, there may be opportunities for beneficial attrition to the Kaigun. I have some concern about Morotai, but it's configured the way it should be and set to serve a purpose.




ny59giants -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 1:08:40 PM)

Destroying Japan's oil and refineries is always a good thing. [sm=00000028.gif] I've always felt that forcing Japanese players to rely upon stockpiles in the Home Islands is a good strategy. It worked well for the Allies IRL.




witpqs -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 2:00:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

I thought "do not refuel" only worked at ports?

Interesting. Doesn't the AI override when you reach bingo fuel?

Other "tricks":

-Retire
-Chose a start hex that allow the TF to reach the objective at night
-Normal speed
-Set home base to something close so the AI calculates fuel reserves differently
-Choose the shortest ingress/egress (if it is a close call) even if you have to cross enemy hexes or coastal hexes
-Detach escorts that are too low on fuel


So, after reading the manual on the fuel consumption... it is not actually the Full Speed setting itself that determines how much fuel your ships burn. It is the number of hexes moved. I will set to Full to make sure my guys retire as far as possible from the base, although typically the danger area is around only 3-5 hexes from the target base (assuming I knocked out its airfield) so Mission usually suffices.

Also, the home base changing to something else so you can control the direction of the retirement is good.

Direct/Absolute routing settings. Coastal as needed (e.g., to avoid certain hexes).

Do NOT use waypoints.



If you set to "Do Not Refuel", no ships will refuel ever. Even if they hit 0 Endurance.

That is false.
- They do refuel "at sea". Even when in port you will notice that the "Refuel at sea" button works.
- They do refuel at waypoints for each waypoint that has refuel instructions. This is true even if a waypoint is at a port.

I do these things routinely and they work fine without glitches.

Just to avoid confusion, note that I am not referring to anything specific to bombardment missions (I think the discussion started out regarding how bombardment TF behave).


I meant the automatic refueling when the ships cross their endurance threshold check for current fuel vs. fuel needed for mission. {See my comments below.} Not the manual refueling that players can do by clicking the button. I've never actually hit bingo fuel doing this, but have had ships get down into the double digits on Endurance on multiple occasions (while the BBs are still up around 8K - plenty of reserve so the auto transfer was not taking place, as intended).

However, with Do Not Refuel set, I can confirm that the Replenish TF from Port button is greyed out until you remove the setting. <- True, this is where the setting is supposed to matter.

OK, but even that is false. For example, I create a convoy of Liberty ships at San Francisco with a few SC as escort. The Liberty ships have huge fuel tanks and the SC have ranges of at most ~3,000 miles, some only 1,500 miles. The TF as a whole has much greater range than needed, but the SC will need to refuel at sea many times or they will never reach the destination. I set the TF to "Do not refuel" so that it will not drain fuel from the forward base and send it to the destination. The escorts do refuel as needed. Works every time, without exception.

But wait - what about cases where a TF does *NOT* have so much fuel compared to what it needs? THAT is totally different! I am paraphrasing what happens and what Michael has said: During the refueling cycle, each ship that might provide fuel is checked for how much fuel it has versus how much fuel it needs to complete the mission. If it does not meet a certain threshold, then it will not contribute fuel. That threshold is some amount more than the exact calculation of what it needs. I do not know what the threshold is. The point is that you can have a TF which shows adequate range for a mission but which, after some point in time, will not refuel its shorter-ranged ships.

Make sense?

One thing you can do in some cases (depends on what you are trying to do, etc.) is set up way points at ports along the way. For example, suppose you want to send a TF from San Francisco to unload at Guam without draining fuel from Guam, but the TF does not have adequate range. What you can do set "Do not refuel", then set up a waypoint at Pearl Harbor with the fueling option set to "Full refuel" (I forget if that is the exact wording), and also set "Y" to the option to return via the same waypoints. What will happen is that the TF will refuel at Pearl Harbor, keeping the ships above the threshold where they *will* provide fuel to the small escorts throughout the whole journey. Hope I explained that well enough, I have done it plenty and it works quite well.




crsutton -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 2:22:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

1/7/44

Big Tent: Mostly logistics today, with good progress made. See map for details.

Roller Coaster: KB and other "power" in the Marshalls, plus a stout enemy TF up near Marcus. John is shifting weight forward. Why? Where's he going? See map for details.

Burma: For most of the New Year, Allied 4EB have been working over enemy strategic targets in Burma and vicinity. I think the oil production in Magwe is all but shut down. The oil refineries at Bangkok and Rangoon have been hit pretty hard. And some other targets (light industry mainly) have also been targeted. I'm not sure whether this has a meaningful affect on John. The hope was to draw a representative portion of his fighters this way. Thus far I don't think he's done so.




I would not waste assets hitting both refineries and oil. All you need to do is just hit one of them to be effective. But of course if your bombing is un opposed and you think you need the VP, bombs away...




Cap Mandrake -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 2:37:10 PM)

Don't discount the pure joy of breaking things of value. It's fun.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 2:40:38 PM)

My familiarity with strategic bombing and the "ways" of strategic resources in general is limited. It's been at least six years since I was involved in this aspect of the game. What I did know six years ago I've largely forgotten.

My educated guess is that oil produced at Magwe makes its way to Rangoon. The refinery there turns some of it (probably not all of it - I think the refinery has small capacity) to fuel. So, ships can refuel at Rangoon, or John can ship the raw oil to other places that do have refineries, such as the Home Islands. Rangoon is out on a distant wing, where it isn't efficient for John to send ships to refuel, so in the current game, hitting the refinery probably has a dampened effect.

But hitting a forward refinery does have some effect on the efficiency of his turning oil into fuel. Right? Or am I missing something basic?

John hasn't repaired the oil production or refinery capabilities at Medan since retaking the base back in the spring (or, if he has repaired them at all, jut a little bit).




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 2:46:14 PM)

Peanut Gallery Question:

Death Star will be retiring into the Coral Sea in a couple of weeks. She may then go home to Pearl Harbor, or she may remain in the Oz area for awhile.

Some DS carriers are due upgrades. If DS remains in Oz, I have several upgrade options. Townsville is a size 7 port (and is my preference for upgrades). Sydney is the other good option. Is there benefit to choosing Sydney over Townsville? (Note: Townsville is a size 9 airfield with more than 450 aviation support, so security wouldn't be an issue during the upgrades.)




Mike McCreery -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 2:54:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Peanut Gallery Question:

Death Star will be retiring into the Coral Sea in a couple of weeks. She may then go home to Pearl Harbor, or she may remain in the Oz area for awhile.

Some DS carriers are due upgrades. If DS remains in Oz, I have several upgrade options. Townsville is a size 7 port (and is my preference for upgrades). Sydney is the other good option. Is there benefit to choosing Sydney over Townsville? (Note: Townsville is a size 9 airfield with more than 450 aviation support, so security wouldn't be an issue during the upgrades.)


The delay is hard coded and is not affected by naval support so as long as the shipyard requirements are met it really does not matter.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 2:57:22 PM)

The Cost of Big Tent

Big Tent isn't complete yet. There is still another week or so in which losses may occur to either side. But the op is beginning to wind down.

Last night I tallied ship losses for both sides during the op, including Death Star and the Herd transiting the Pacific from Midway vicinity to the DEI (and what a perilous journey that was, as John's subs tore into merchants and gave me willies for about a week). The info about my losses should be accurate, but the info about John's is more "representative," given FOW. I think John's losses will be great than listed, except in the submarine category, where reported losses are almost certainly exaggerated.

Allies. Total lost to date: 66

CLAA: 1
DD: 11
DE: 3
APA: 1
AKA: 2
AK: 2
TK: 3
xAK: 21
xAP: 6
LST: 3
APD: 2
LCI: 2
AM: 2
SC: 3
YMS: 3

The only other major ship damaged for the Allies were CL Birmingham (torpedoed by a sub near Wake early on, she returned to Pearl and is fully repaired) and CVE Altamaha, with light-moderate damage. She's disbanded in port and should be fine barring further encounters with hostiles.

My impression of the losses during the op has always been that they were on the light side. Seeing the numbers tallied seems to belie that impression. Truly, though, the losses have been fairly light. A fair number of the xAK (plus a few LST and LCI) came during the crossing, in the vicinity of Wake to Truk, when John's subs were eating me up. There, for awhile, I wondered how many losses of big ships I'd take. But once I outran the wolfpack, things settled down. John's subs have been far less effective in the DEI, due primarily to elevated detection levels.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 3:06:40 PM)

Japan. Total lost to date: 150

CV: 1 (Junyo, though I am as positive as I can be that she wasn't sunk; she was hit with two TT and will be in the yards a long time)
CVL: 1
BB: 1 (with another heavily damaged and three more requiring yard time)
CL: 1
DD: 12
PB: 19
E: 1
SS: 20
SSX: 1
DMS: 1
CM: 3
ARD: 1
ACM: 2
TK: 1
xAK: 53
xAP: 8
xAKL: 4
SC: 11
MTB: 9

John's losses aren't devastatingly high. But I think a series of small surface combat clashes in the DEI early in Big Tent, plus the sub activity in the ocean to the north, persuaded him that the DEI was "too hot" to take chances. As a result, he elected to keep his carriers and the weight of his combat shipping out of harm's way. This strategy included the bushwhack planned for the Torres Strait. The DEI is a dangerous place for both sides, but John's strategy really opened things up, allowing the Allies to proceed more rapidly in moving ships around on various missions. I just didn't have to fear IJN combat TF raids, which usually are so devastating. That, above everything, suggests that the Kaigun is not healthy and that John is showing a high degree of solicitude for its welfare (except when Yamato and Mutsu blundered into peril).




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 3:19:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr
The delay is hard coded and is not affected by naval support so as long as the shipyard requirements are met it really does not matter.


I *think* that a level seven port is big enough to handle CV upgrades. I'd check - and there's probably a fairly easy way to do so - but I think I'll just give it a try.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 3:22:45 PM)

Upgrades due:

10/43: Four CVs, BBs West Virginia and Maryland
11/43: CLAA Juneau
01/44: Two CVs, four CA, one CLAA

I'll probably start all upgrades at the same time, on the basis that the sooner I get Death Star re-operational the better (as opposed to a staggered system: meeting KB with less than full DS isn't going to be an option). While those ships are out of action, DS will consist of two CVs, all CVLs (about five), all CVEs (about eight), and a goodly number of BBs and cruisers.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 3:25:43 PM)

I stumbled across the port size information and length-of-time info for the upgrades in the upgrade path on the ship info screens.

It looks like the 10/43 upgrades take 10 days and don't have a minimum port size.
The 01/44 upgrades for Lex and Saratoga will take 21 days and take a minimum level five port.

So Townsville will serve.




Squamry -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 3:36:47 PM)

Sometimes it is Shipyard size required and not port size. Look at the upgrade details for each ship as this might mean Sydney is required for some Ships (or Brisbane which is level 10 shipyard).




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 5:52:47 PM)

Thanks for the good tip, Squamry. I followed your advice and learned that the 1/44 upgrades do take a size 5 shipyard, meaning the carriers will have to go to Brisbane.

I definitely will do the 10/43 upgrades. Whether I'll do the 1/44 upgrades now, I'll have to ponder for awhile. 21 days in port is a lengthy time, though this may be the best time to do it.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 5:58:01 PM)

1/8/44 Part I

Roller Coaster: The Allied attack at Kwaj comes off at 1:1 and drops forts to four. Both sides are in deplorable condition at the moment, but the Japanese are the more deplorable. This base will fall soon...unless John reinforces. And that may be exactly what he's doing. He has lots of merchant shipping in the immediate vicinity. It's clearly a high-priority mission since KB is present. Or...it's possible he could be withdrawing troops.

I should know tomorrow. The Allies will attack again. If he's reinforced in the meantime, the attack will prove ugly.

If John does reinforce, I'll probably leave Kwaj alone for the rest of the war. I don't need it anyway, but the troops are there and the defenders are so weak it's worth trying. Besides, several of my units withdraw in less than two months.

Most importantly, the Allied activity here (bombardments by BB Colorado TF and the ground attacks) caught John's attention. He's committed much of his navy here, which is helpful elsewhere. (or, possibly, he decided independently to withdraw his garrisons and needs carrier protection.)



[image]local://upfiles/8143/0306F399C18E4B89A3FDA927857DF7FC.jpg[/image]




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 6:17:05 PM)

1/8/44 Part II

Big Tent: A day devoted to logistics - not sexy, but vital. See map for further details.

Big Tent is very close to wrapping up. There are merchant TFs at Ambon, Morotai and Manokwari (each protected by combat TFs) that need two or three more days to unload.

But even as that draws to a close, final preparations are being made at Boela for the departure. Departure might occur in three or four days. When that happens, this should be the sequence of events:

1. The Herd and DS move to the southern islands to make final troop deliveries to Saumlaki and vicinity. At the same time, good transports will pick up 2nd Marine Division at Dobo (that unit is 41% prepped for Gove).

2. The Herd and DS will then move to occupy Bathurst and Wessel, if those are still vacant. As that is taking place, I'll decide whether to invade Gove now (likely) or to wait until later. I don't at all mind invading and then leaving the marines in place for a week or two while I attend to other matters. (Gove's defenses are fairly stout at 14k troops.)

3. The Herd and DS will then retire to Normanton to pick up the Horn Island invasion troops.

4. Following the assault on Horn Island, the Herd and DS move to NE Oz.

5. At that point, I'll decide whether to immediate invade Port Moresby (unlikely, I think) or to first upgrade carriers.


[image]local://upfiles/8143/E8AB584A177445119B6468948C98ADA6.jpg[/image]




Lokasenna -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 6:18:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, but even that is false. For example, I create a convoy of Liberty ships at San Francisco with a few SC as escort. The Liberty ships have huge fuel tanks and the SC have ranges of at most ~3,000 miles, some only 1,500 miles. The TF as a whole has much greater range than needed, but the SC will need to refuel at sea many times or they will never reach the destination. I set the TF to "Do not refuel" so that it will not drain fuel from the forward base and send it to the destination. The escorts do refuel as needed. Works every time, without exception.

But wait - what about cases where a TF does *NOT* have so much fuel compared to what it needs? THAT is totally different! I am paraphrasing what happens and what Michael has said: During the refueling cycle, each ship that might provide fuel is checked for how much fuel it has versus how much fuel it needs to complete the mission. If it does not meet a certain threshold, then it will not contribute fuel. That threshold is some amount more than the exact calculation of what it needs. I do not know what the threshold is. The point is that you can have a TF which shows adequate range for a mission but which, after some point in time, will not refuel its shorter-ranged ships.

Make sense?

One thing you can do in some cases (depends on what you are trying to do, etc.) is set up way points at ports along the way. For example, suppose you want to send a TF from San Francisco to unload at Guam without draining fuel from Guam, but the TF does not have adequate range. What you can do set "Do not refuel", then set up a waypoint at Pearl Harbor with the fueling option set to "Full refuel" (I forget if that is the exact wording), and also set "Y" to the option to return via the same waypoints. What will happen is that the TF will refuel at Pearl Harbor, keeping the ships above the threshold where they *will* provide fuel to the small escorts throughout the whole journey. Hope I explained that well enough, I have done it plenty and it works quite well.


Then I have no explanation for why I can set my BBTFs to do not refuel and have my DDs run down to really low levels of endurance (my steel trap of a memory says 237 Endurance or 200-something) while the BBs have 8000+, with only a few hexes left to go (so nothing to stop the BBs from refueling the DDs when there's not enough fuel to complete mission). We're talking about like 6 hexes left to go. That 237 Endurance would normally trigger the automatic refuel in these conditions. I'm aware of all of the threshold stuff for this automatic refueling - but I've created conditions where they don't apply, so the only explanation for the lack of refueling is that the Do Not Refuel setting took care of it.

Are we running different versions? [;)] I run .26a these days.




BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 7:19:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, but even that is false. For example, I create a convoy of Liberty ships at San Francisco with a few SC as escort. The Liberty ships have huge fuel tanks and the SC have ranges of at most ~3,000 miles, some only 1,500 miles. The TF as a whole has much greater range than needed, but the SC will need to refuel at sea many times or they will never reach the destination. I set the TF to "Do not refuel" so that it will not drain fuel from the forward base and send it to the destination. The escorts do refuel as needed. Works every time, without exception.

But wait - what about cases where a TF does *NOT* have so much fuel compared to what it needs? THAT is totally different! I am paraphrasing what happens and what Michael has said: During the refueling cycle, each ship that might provide fuel is checked for how much fuel it has versus how much fuel it needs to complete the mission. If it does not meet a certain threshold, then it will not contribute fuel. That threshold is some amount more than the exact calculation of what it needs. I do not know what the threshold is. The point is that you can have a TF which shows adequate range for a mission but which, after some point in time, will not refuel its shorter-ranged ships.

Make sense?

One thing you can do in some cases (depends on what you are trying to do, etc.) is set up way points at ports along the way. For example, suppose you want to send a TF from San Francisco to unload at Guam without draining fuel from Guam, but the TF does not have adequate range. What you can do set "Do not refuel", then set up a waypoint at Pearl Harbor with the fueling option set to "Full refuel" (I forget if that is the exact wording), and also set "Y" to the option to return via the same waypoints. What will happen is that the TF will refuel at Pearl Harbor, keeping the ships above the threshold where they *will* provide fuel to the small escorts throughout the whole journey. Hope I explained that well enough, I have done it plenty and it works quite well.


Then I have no explanation for why I can set my BBTFs to do not refuel and have my DDs run down to really low levels of endurance (my steel trap of a memory says 237 Endurance or 200-something) while the BBs have 8000+, with only a few hexes left to go (so nothing to stop the BBs from refueling the DDs when there's not enough fuel to complete mission). We're talking about like 6 hexes left to go. That 237 Endurance would normally trigger the automatic refuel in these conditions. I'm aware of all of the threshold stuff for this automatic refueling - but I've created conditions where they don't apply, so the only explanation for the lack of refueling is that the Do Not Refuel setting took care of it.

Are we running different versions? [;)] I run .26a these days.

Maybe the difference is in you Threat Tolerance settings or leader aggression. On the latter, I have noticed that really aggressive leaders will use up more of their ammo in a bombardment before retiring, so I surmise that fuel minimums might be influenced too.




BBfanboy -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 7:20:43 PM)

John's activities in the Marshalls make me wonder if he is trying to build a new ambush point for the anticipated return of your herd to PH?




Lokasenna -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 8:55:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, but even that is false. For example, I create a convoy of Liberty ships at San Francisco with a few SC as escort. The Liberty ships have huge fuel tanks and the SC have ranges of at most ~3,000 miles, some only 1,500 miles. The TF as a whole has much greater range than needed, but the SC will need to refuel at sea many times or they will never reach the destination. I set the TF to "Do not refuel" so that it will not drain fuel from the forward base and send it to the destination. The escorts do refuel as needed. Works every time, without exception.

But wait - what about cases where a TF does *NOT* have so much fuel compared to what it needs? THAT is totally different! I am paraphrasing what happens and what Michael has said: During the refueling cycle, each ship that might provide fuel is checked for how much fuel it has versus how much fuel it needs to complete the mission. If it does not meet a certain threshold, then it will not contribute fuel. That threshold is some amount more than the exact calculation of what it needs. I do not know what the threshold is. The point is that you can have a TF which shows adequate range for a mission but which, after some point in time, will not refuel its shorter-ranged ships.

Make sense?

One thing you can do in some cases (depends on what you are trying to do, etc.) is set up way points at ports along the way. For example, suppose you want to send a TF from San Francisco to unload at Guam without draining fuel from Guam, but the TF does not have adequate range. What you can do set "Do not refuel", then set up a waypoint at Pearl Harbor with the fueling option set to "Full refuel" (I forget if that is the exact wording), and also set "Y" to the option to return via the same waypoints. What will happen is that the TF will refuel at Pearl Harbor, keeping the ships above the threshold where they *will* provide fuel to the small escorts throughout the whole journey. Hope I explained that well enough, I have done it plenty and it works quite well.


Then I have no explanation for why I can set my BBTFs to do not refuel and have my DDs run down to really low levels of endurance (my steel trap of a memory says 237 Endurance or 200-something) while the BBs have 8000+, with only a few hexes left to go (so nothing to stop the BBs from refueling the DDs when there's not enough fuel to complete mission). We're talking about like 6 hexes left to go. That 237 Endurance would normally trigger the automatic refuel in these conditions. I'm aware of all of the threshold stuff for this automatic refueling - but I've created conditions where they don't apply, so the only explanation for the lack of refueling is that the Do Not Refuel setting took care of it.

Are we running different versions? [;)] I run .26a these days.

Maybe the difference is in you Threat Tolerance settings or leader aggression. On the latter, I have noticed that really aggressive leaders will use up more of their ammo in a bombardment before retiring, so I surmise that fuel minimums might be influenced too.


Shouldn't have anything to do with refueling.


Ammo used in bombardment may be affected by leader aggression, but a greater factor is DL of the target. Low DL (or even no pre-existing DL) = fewer shots fired.




witpqs -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 9:25:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, but even that is false. For example, I create a convoy of Liberty ships at San Francisco with a few SC as escort. The Liberty ships have huge fuel tanks and the SC have ranges of at most ~3,000 miles, some only 1,500 miles. The TF as a whole has much greater range than needed, but the SC will need to refuel at sea many times or they will never reach the destination. I set the TF to "Do not refuel" so that it will not drain fuel from the forward base and send it to the destination. The escorts do refuel as needed. Works every time, without exception.

But wait - what about cases where a TF does *NOT* have so much fuel compared to what it needs? THAT is totally different! I am paraphrasing what happens and what Michael has said: During the refueling cycle, each ship that might provide fuel is checked for how much fuel it has versus how much fuel it needs to complete the mission. If it does not meet a certain threshold, then it will not contribute fuel. That threshold is some amount more than the exact calculation of what it needs. I do not know what the threshold is. The point is that you can have a TF which shows adequate range for a mission but which, after some point in time, will not refuel its shorter-ranged ships.

Make sense?

One thing you can do in some cases (depends on what you are trying to do, etc.) is set up way points at ports along the way. For example, suppose you want to send a TF from San Francisco to unload at Guam without draining fuel from Guam, but the TF does not have adequate range. What you can do set "Do not refuel", then set up a waypoint at Pearl Harbor with the fueling option set to "Full refuel" (I forget if that is the exact wording), and also set "Y" to the option to return via the same waypoints. What will happen is that the TF will refuel at Pearl Harbor, keeping the ships above the threshold where they *will* provide fuel to the small escorts throughout the whole journey. Hope I explained that well enough, I have done it plenty and it works quite well.


Then I have no explanation for why I can set my BBTFs to do not refuel and have my DDs run down to really low levels of endurance (my steel trap of a memory says 237 Endurance or 200-something) while the BBs have 8000+, with only a few hexes left to go (so nothing to stop the BBs from refueling the DDs when there's not enough fuel to complete mission). We're talking about like 6 hexes left to go. That 237 Endurance would normally trigger the automatic refuel in these conditions. I'm aware of all of the threshold stuff for this automatic refueling - but I've created conditions where they don't apply, so the only explanation for the lack of refueling is that the Do Not Refuel setting took care of it.

Are we running different versions? [;)] I run .26a these days.

I'm running the latest Beta, but it has worked very consistently for me for a really long time. I don't think there have been any recent changes to that stuff.




Lokasenna -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 9:39:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I'm running the latest Beta, but it has worked very consistently for me for a really long time. I don't think there have been any recent changes to that stuff.


The next time I do this, I will take screenshots, etc. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just 95% sure that I'm not.




Canoerebel -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 9:56:16 PM)

John is a stubborn cuss. He has an army and a fleet behind him and he's still leaning forward; always looking to attack; probably neglecting his defenses far more than he ought to.

Since I'm behind him it has suited very well to have him forward...until now. As Big Tent winds down, I want John looking to his defenses in the DEI, not roaming around forward areas where he might stumble across Allied task forces.

So, during a long seven-mile hike this afternoon, I came up with Operation Carousel. I'll trigger this only if KB is still lingering in the Marshalls in four or five days. In that event, I might commit might reserve forces (five RCTs) and seize a group of islands forward, towards Java. This assumes that there are five good vacant ones out there. I'm pretty sure there are, since John has been leaning forward too far, for too long.

What if he still doesn't react "properly"? Operation Carousel has several stages. I'll keep going until he employs KB to stop me.

What about Horn Island? That comes soon - either now or after occupying those three or for or five good vacant bases. What I think I'm going to do, though, is postpone Gove. I'm going to forego what might be a tough battle in my rear while instead moving further into John's rear.




SuluSea -> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent (11/16/2016 11:11:47 PM)

Hi Dan, Have you considered flying occasional LRCap over any of his islands you can reach?

Keep in mind at this stage of the war he'll have available (assuming John built them) the H8K2-L Emily float plane which has long range and a higher transport capacity than the Commando and slightly more than double the Dakota.

I never got that far in my Japanese sided games but always had them in my strategic plan to move troops if need be.

Looking forward to more. [:)]




Page: <<   < prev  265 266 [267] 268 269   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375