quote:

Is the "load only troops" button gone?

quote:

Wouldnt this keep us from loading on supplies and saving then for AK convoys?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Frag....I assume it loads enough to cover the troops you got onboard??

No, you will be relearning the entire concept for loading things from scratch. It has been completely gutted and redone to make sense.

example time:

You have an HQ unit which is 300 support. Support has a load cost of 20 per element.

That gives you 6000 Infantry type load factors.

Taking an AP that has 3000 capacity, one sees that Infantry load factors take 1 space per element.

Take 3x 3000 AP's (9000 capacity).

The 6000 infantry factors will spread out over those 3 ships (2000 per). The remaining space (1000) will get loaded with supplies *but* AP's are not suited to carry supplies (load factor of 3) so you have 1000 space devided by 3 or 333 supplies.

You will end up with:

100 troops per ship and 333 supplies.

Adding a 4th ship to the mix:

4x 3000 AP's (12000 capacity)

1500 troops factors x1
500 supply factors x 3

75 troops per ship, and 500 supplies.

Change to AK's ... oh oh ... brain starting to hurt!!!

AK load Infantry at a factor of 6 but supplies at a factor of 1

still have 6000 infantry load factors ... so 6000 x 6 (ouch!) or 36000 AK space.

So we scratch our head and come up with 6 7000 AK ships.

so, 42000 space of which 36000 goes to troops and 6000 to supply.

Ship ends up looking like: 50 Troops, 1000 supply.

Brain still not gushing blood yet? You really want me to go on?

quote:

REALLY CHARMING, BUT..... IS THERE ANY AUTOMATICS SYSTEM????

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Is the "load only troops" button gone?

Still available.

quote:

Wouldnt this keep us from loading on supplies and saving then for AK convoys?

No. The leftover space in ships is still going to get some supplies tucked in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

REALLY CHARMING, BUT..... IS THERE ANY AUTOMATICS SYSTEM????

That *is* the automatic system. I am just explaining how it works so you can get the best results out of it. [;)]

quote:

If I tell a convoy to load only troops, why will they still pack in supplies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

If I tell a convoy to load only troops, why will they still pack in supplies?

No, but understand that troops no longer carry any supplies with them when loading. You will end up with absolutely no supplies at all and wasted space on the ships.

[image]local://upfiles/8185/Om338174420.jpg[/image]

quote:

However, when possible I will create AK convoys to haul in supplies for an invasion. AP's unload supplies so slow that they tend to hang around far to long and catch all those nasty bombs that planes like to drop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

REALLY CHARMING, BUT..... IS THERE ANY AUTOMATICS SYSTEM????

That *is* the automatic system. I am just explaining how it works so you can get the best results out of it. [;)]

quote:

SO SORRY AGAIN MR.FRAG, BUT WHAT´S THE BEST TYPE OF SHIP TO LOAD TROOPS TO??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

SO SORRY AGAIN MR.FRAG, BUT WHAT´S THE BEST TYPE OF SHIP TO LOAD TROOPS TO??

Depends on the *type* of troops.

Inf = AP
AA = AK
HQ = AP
ARM = AK
ART = AK
ENG = AP (US ENG = AK if lots of Tractors)

It varies by the makeup of the unit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Supply = AK best, AP worst.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Supply = AK best, AP worst.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Supply = AK best, AP worst.

Once you guys get the manual there is a couple of pages dedicated to this topic of how everything fits into what kind of ships. Its interesting and seems to be right on the money - very important to pay attention to what you load on which ships - you can carry more and be faster in unloading too.

Xargun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

However, when possible I will create AK convoys to haul in supplies for an invasion. AP's unload supplies so slow that they tend to hang around far to long and catch all those nasty bombs that planes like to drop.

Understood, but should your AK's run into a sub on the way, they will be a tad late and your troops will land with 0 supply and you will have a completely failed invasion. Pretty dangerous to run separate TF's.

You only have so many escorts to go around. The more TF's you have, the lower the level of escort protection you will have. Better to be strong in a few places then weak in many places.

quote:

One final question...if a ship is damaged and loses speed...does it detach itself and go back to its home base? I dont see why this would be changed since UV but you said if a sub found your convoy the whole system would be slowed down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

One final question...if a ship is damaged and loses speed...does it detach itself and go back to its home base? I dont see why this would be changed since UV but you said if a sub found your convoy the whole system would be slowed down.

If the speed loss is dramatic enough, it will detach, but until then it might just make the difference between supplies for the beachhead and no supplies. AP's are generally faster then AK's so timing separate TF's is rather tricky. I've always found it easier to lump them together then split out the empty ships and send them home *BUT* I also have noted that sending thos empty ships home when instead they could be part of the masses which have escort and AA protection and probably LRCAP is not particularly safe.

One thing you quickly learn as Japan, you just don't have the goods to keep more then 3 invasion fleets running without running light on something. If you play within your means, you will dramatically reduce your losses. If you stretch yourself to add a couple more invasions, you are going to loose stuff whether it be to air power or naval power.

You have to ask yourself ... is an extra couple of days to get to a base safely more important then getting there with losses on the way. It is a strategy choice.

quote:

How viable for Japan is it to march overland to capture bases? Or is it a better idea to invade everything from the sea?
The reason I ask is that it would take some of the pressure off of your Navy to land on one spot of the island and then use land hexes to march to the rest of the bases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

How viable for Japan is it to march overland to capture bases? Or is it a better idea to invade everything from the sea?
The reason I ask is that it would take some of the pressure off of your Navy to land on one spot of the island and then use land hexes to march to the rest of the bases.

There are a LOT of bases that can *only* be taken via a march. Key thing to remember is that overland movement takes time. It is much slower then troop transports.

If there are no types of trail/road/rail networks, it will be a LONG time. (about 2 miles a day average)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

As long as I am bothering you [:D]....one last question. I noticed most combat units in the game are division size. Can you split these into sub units? I cant imagine trying to garrison every base you take with a divisional unit. You wouldnt have enough men to go around.

quote:

No, you will be relearning the entire concept for loading things from scratch. It has been completely gutted and redone to make sense.

quote:

What is the point of making loading troops so complicated? The routine seemed to work okay in UV.