Fuel Requests (Full Version)

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



Message


slane_slith -> Fuel Requests (9/15/2014 4:32:36 PM)

I know this has been asked but I can’t find it. Can someone point me to the thread or tell me why some bases request fuel when there are only LCU’s there. Does it affect the combat effectiveness of the LCU’s based there? I’m having it happen with bases in Australia and with islands.

Thanks




LoBaron -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/15/2014 4:35:53 PM)

Fuel is requested for all ships with that port as homebase, present or not.




geofflambert -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/15/2014 6:35:13 PM)

You have to hire a staff to play this game [:D]




rustysi -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/15/2014 9:44:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

You have to hire a staff to play this game [:D]


No you don't that's what the forum is for.[:'(]




wdolson -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/15/2014 11:28:28 PM)

A base will also put in a fuel request for ships that have stopped there recently. So if a transport TF was dropping off troops there, there will be a fuel request for enough fuel to refuel the transports for a while. I forget the time span, probably a couple of weeks. There will also be a fuel request if a base has heavy industry.

Bill




LeeChard -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/16/2014 9:35:42 AM)

I believe this forum IS my staff.




slane_slith -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/17/2014 12:29:54 AM)

Thanks everyone. I wonder if the US military has a forum that admirals and generals can get on and ask questions.

"I know this has been asked before but I need to move 10,000 troops to Afghanistan, how many transports will I need..."




wdolson -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/17/2014 12:35:20 AM)

That's why flag officers have staffs.

Bill




btd64 -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/17/2014 2:53:23 AM)

The best thing about THIS STAFF is there is always someone available.[:)]....GP




Alfred -> RE: Fuel Requests (9/18/2014 9:34:28 AM)

The "fuel request" number on the base screen is derived from the following "demands".

1.  Two days worth of feedstock for the local Heavy Industry.  This is a "permanent demand".

2.  Each port level demands 1000 fuel points.  So a level 5 port automatically "demands" 5000 fuel points even if no ships are present in the port, none have ever refueled there, or no TF has that base as it's home port.  This is a "permanent demand".

3.  Refuelling  "demand" from

  •  ships in port
  •  in a TF whose home base is that port
  •  visiting ships

This is a "temporary demand" in that it is only added to the "permanent demands" if either the "permanent demand" is insufficient that turn to satisfy the "temporary demand" or there is no fuel present at all.

Exemplars are:

(a) airfield has 20 HI.  Fuel request is only 80 ("permanent demand").

(b) port has 20  HI + port size is 5.  Fuel request is 5080 ("permanent demand").  The "temporary" demand is not added to the "permanent" demand if the 5080 "permanent demand" quantum is more than the total refuelling requirement that turn.

(c) port has 20 HI + port size is 5 + has a "temporary demand" from 1 anchored ship plus a single visiting ship which is being refuelled plus a single home based TF of a single ship.  The "temporary demand" is not added to  the "permanent demand" as the "temporary demand" that turn can be satisfied from the 5080 "permanent demand" quantum.

(d) port has 20 HI + port size is 5 + has 700 ships at anchor plus has 15 visiting ships being refuelled plus has 7 home based TFs containing 120 ships.  In this instance the "temporary demand" is more than the "permanent demand" so the total fuel request quantum for that turn is 5080 + the "temporary demand".

(e) port has no HI + port size is 1 + has only a single anchored AVD + no fuel is present.  The fuel request is 1000 + "temporary demand".

Alfred    




Yaab -> RE: Fuel Requests (10/29/2015 11:48:14 AM)

What happens when an empty port with no HI gets bombed and is damaged, thus temporarily reducing its port level from i.e 5 to 2? Does the amount of fuel requested drop accordingly?




Alfred -> RE: Fuel Requests (10/29/2015 2:08:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

What happens when an empty port with no HI gets bombed and is damaged, thus temporarily reducing its port level from i.e 5 to 2? Does the amount of fuel requested drop accordingly?


No, it is a structural "permanent" demand which remains. An undamaged size 5 port and a size 5 port with 30% port damage both have a structural permanent demand for 5000 fuel points.

Alfred




Yaab -> RE: Fuel Requests (10/29/2015 2:09:17 PM)

Thanks!




LGKMAS -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/19/2020 8:59:59 AM)

Thanks Alfred. Clears up a number of things.




RangerJoe -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/19/2020 10:23:50 AM)

Thank you again Alfred.

Joe




rustysi -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/19/2020 1:52:03 PM)

Talk about resurrecting an old thread.[;)]




BBfanboy -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/19/2020 5:58:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Talk about resurrecting an old thread.[;)]

It wasn't old to LGKMAS, and probably a lot of other new adherents to this religion ... [&o]




LGKMAS -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/20/2020 2:22:11 AM)

My Fault. I clicked on the thread that Alfred posted in reply to my query only a few days ago and forgot where I was when I posted the thank you.




Alfred -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/20/2020 6:12:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Talk about resurrecting an old thread.[;)]


There is nothing wrong with resurrecting an old thread if it contains solid game mechanic facts. Not so useful when the old thread contains only opinions and fashionable statements.

After all, we wouldn't dismiss a 2009 thread which contained dev explanations of game mechanics just because it is 11 years old, would we?

Alfred




Ian R -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/20/2020 6:47:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Talk about resurrecting an old thread.[;)]


There is nothing wrong with resurrecting an old thread if it contains solid game mechanic facts. Not so useful when the old thread contains only opinions and fashionable statements.

After all, we wouldn't dismiss a 2009 thread which contained dev explanations of game mechanics just because it is 11 years old, would we?

Alfred



I'm tempted to ask if there is a 2009 thread about the level bombers bombing ships topic...

I'll just get my coat.




Alfred -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/20/2020 7:32:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Talk about resurrecting an old thread.[;)]


There is nothing wrong with resurrecting an old thread if it contains solid game mechanic facts. Not so useful when the old thread contains only opinions and fashionable statements.

After all, we wouldn't dismiss a 2009 thread which contained dev explanations of game mechanics just because it is 11 years old, would we?

Alfred



I'm tempted to ask if there is a 2009 thread about the level bombers bombing ships topic...

I'll just get my coat.


Is April 2010 good enough?[:)]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2432957&mpage=1&key=naval

A quick search found the above thread where the need for HRs to reign in the Allied 4E Beasties from attacking the IJN was very much opined upon. The quick search also brought up 2009 threads, but there it was a case of AFB lamenting their level bombers couldn't hit anything. A fuller search will doubtless find other early threads. Certainly there are other 7-10 year old threads on the subject.

Alfred




Ian R -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/20/2020 7:55:32 AM)

Yes, I found CR Suttons thread comments from 2014 on a search - but thank you, that is a very useful link.

Rustysi and I have been disagreeing (to some extent) elsewhere on the topic. We shall probably continue to do so, yet with an absence of malice.

I simply say that when the allies did it, at high attrition cost, they got hits. That should be available to the player, as it is not "ahistorical" as is often stated as a truism on this forum. You don't even get to the point of talking about non historical options open to the IJA player.




LGKMAS -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/20/2020 9:26:38 AM)

Whoa!
Guys, I didn't realise there was such a cross threading going on and the various back stories.
I did admit it was my fault as I wanted to thank Alfred for clearing up a minor matter. I did admit that I had forgotten where I was posting from when I did that. My own search engine phraseology is woefully weak (and she who must be obeyed keeps telling me that is so) hence I have to often post on the forum what I hope are not idiotic questions and then wait in nervous expectation for someone to take pity on an old man. Thankfully the forum is generally supportive and I am thankful for the forbearance and understanding of members.
please let this acceptance of slow learners continue. It does make the game much more enjoyable.




Ian R -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/20/2020 9:34:33 AM)

Keeping posting your questions - it's all good [8D]




rustysi -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/21/2020 2:12:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LGKMAS

My Fault. I clicked on the thread that Alfred posted in reply to my query only a few days ago and forgot where I was when I posted the thank you.


No biggie, just bustin' chops.[:D]




rustysi -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/21/2020 2:17:22 AM)

quote:

After all, we wouldn't dismiss a 2009 thread which contained dev explanations of game mechanics just because it is 11 years old, would we?


Never.[8D]




rustysi -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/21/2020 2:27:51 AM)

quote:

Rustysi and I have been disagreeing (to some extent) elsewhere on the topic. We shall probably continue to do so, yet with an absence of malice.



As it should be. I can in no way say I'm right, because I've never done a PBEM game. It is just my opinion based upon what I've read here on the forum.

That being said, I support my stance for the simple reason that the time invested in a PBEM makes finding out the 'hard' way that much more difficult to accept. As I've said in the past 1000 gamers, 1000 way to play the game. Find players who will accept each others views and have a ball.




rustysi -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/21/2020 2:41:20 AM)

quote:

as it is not "ahistorical" as is often stated as a truism on this forum.


And this I've never asserted, or at least I hope I haven't. With over 6000 post here anything is possible. My objections are based on how I perceive how the code handles bombing. The more bombs you carry, the better chance of a hit, or multiple hits.

quote:

You don't even get to the point of talking about non historical options open to the IJA player.


Huh, the whole Japanese game is non-historical. If it weren't you'd have no Japanese opponents to play.

I'd expound on that, but I don't wish to spend that much time on the subject tonight.[:D]




rustysi -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/21/2020 2:42:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Keeping posting your questions - it's all good [8D]


+1




Randy Stead -> RE: Fuel Requests (12/21/2020 3:14:44 AM)

Would someone be so kind as to inform a new guy what "HR" is in relevance to the resurrected thread, above? I am going to try after posting this to find a thread I think I saw yesterday with a glossary of WitPAE abbreviations.

Speaking of four engine bombers and their historically lamentable lack of precision in ground attack, I recall a joke I heard somewhere a long time ago, about the situation in Normandy. Apologies for those who may have heard it already.

Soldiers were discussing the aptitude of various air forces in tactical support. "When the RAF come over, the Germans duck. When the Luftwaffe come over, the British duck. When the Americans come over, everybody ducks." The joke may have had roots in the war, but it was no joke to those who took casualties from "friendly fire." I recall reading in a book about the launching of Cobra being delayed for a couple of hours to reorganize when some American planes "bombed short" and inflicted 200 or so casualties on the forces spread out on the start line.

I used to play the Avalon Hill board game "Midway" with my brothers and pals back in the 1970s. In that game there was provision for the American player getting to roll a die for a B-17 attack. It happened all too often that with a lucky roll of the die you'd lose a carrier or one of the escorts. After doing some reading we came up with a house rule to not use the B-17 attacks. It's been so long since we played, but it may have been an optional rule to give an inexperienced player of the American side a bit of play balance help.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125