RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures>

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures>

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures>

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 12:31:28 AM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Actually:
In november 1941 Japans total shipping amounted to 6,720,000 grt of ships over 100 tons. Servicable were 5,980,000 grt including 360,000 grt of tankers

of these 3 milions grt of shipping was reserved for nonmilitary use.
Army get 2,100,000grt until end of march, then figures were lowered each month to reach 1 milion grt at july.
Navy got 1,800,000grt each month (270,000 grt of tankers included)

Just to clarify: the increased supply demands in AE of the Japanease industry is used to reflect the need for non-military supply to come back to the Home Islands?

And I have no idea how to get numbers that Barb posted above, but is this about the same feel that you get in AE? In other words, that about 1/2 of your total shipping is being used to run supplies?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 91

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 1:30:54 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Japanese air production (PDUs on):

In analyzing Japanese production my first step was to look at what the capabilities are of the various aircraft what they were good at, what they are bad at and decide if its a type I actually want to produce. So to that end, we're off:

Fighters:
A5M (Claude) v A6M (Zero). The Claude is actually more maneuverable than the Zero below 16k and much more so under 10k. Its range with drop tanks is a respectable 10 hexes v Zeros 14 with tanks but its gun value is only a 4 v the Zeros 12. For this reason it should not be used on CAP as it doesnt have the firepower to knock down bombers. A5M has no factories at start and needless to say you want to convert these squadrons to Zeros as soon as possible. The Zero starts with 56 factories which I plan to add to.

KI-27 (Nate) v KI-43 (Oscar). No contest. The Nate shouldnt be used for anything. It has a dismal 3 hex (4 extended) range a 10 hex transfer range making it very hard to even move! A gun rating of 4 makes it overall a very bad airplane. It is more maneuverable than the Claude even, but still not as much as the Oscar. Oscar only has a 6 gun rating, but its the best you have until mid-42. You start with 45 Nate factories that dont upgrade to anything, so I will convert these to another type. KI-43 Ic starts with 32 (and 8 more damaged).

Dive Bombers:
D3A1 (Val). Thats it. 12 factories at start.

Torpedo Bombers:
B4Y (Jean) v B5M (Mabel) v B5N1 (Kate) v B5N2 (Kate). Japs start with no TBs in production. The Kate 1s and 2s are even R&D aircraft at start (although you have some in your pool at start) not coming on-line until 4/42. The only good thing to say about the Jean is it carries a torpedo. The Mabel is actually over all your best B5 model because of maneuverability and range. I will convert some factories to the B5M (40-50 I would say).

Navy Level Bombers:
G3M (Nell) v G4M (Betty). In stock these were a wash as far as which is better. In AE The G4M1 is better than the G3M2 because of a range advantage (6 hexes further normal and 7 extended). The Nell starts with 22 factories and upgrades to the G3M3 which has a longer range than any of the G4Ms so it may be worthwhile to keep this plane in service. The G4M starts with 25 in production.

Army Bombers:
Army bombers dont dive. The determining factor that was chosen was if it had dive breaks. Therefore none of the army dive bombers are worth keeping. You have 23 Sally plants at start and probably want to keep these producing until 4/42 when the Helen comes on line and you might want to keep the 30 some Lily-1s (although turn it off) until it converts to the Lily-2 because you haev a recon squadron that can convert to the Lily-2 but the 30+ Idas and 30+ Sonias you should convert on turn 1. No reason to keep them.

Recon:
Dinah v Babs is a no brainer. You want Dinahs for range.

Transports:
Tabby isnt available until 1944 and there arent that many squadrons that can use the Tina. Tina and Topsy are your only real choices of course, but you wont need many Tinas.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 2/26/2009 1:31:05 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to TMFoss)

Post #: 92

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 5:22:16 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

D3A1 (Val). Thats it. 12 factories at start.

So, less than stock. I take it you'll expand these factories ASAP? Also, are they all at one location? In stock, they're produced at Tokyo and Nagoya, I think?

quote:

the 30+ Idas and 30+ Sonias you should convert on turn 1. No reason to keep them.

What can you convert them to? And, more importantly, what should you convert them to?

quote:

Tabby isnt available until 1944

Ouch - my favorite transport. Why not til 1944? Wasn't it used in the New Guinea campaign, for example? I thought Japan built quite a few of these.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 93

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 5:43:19 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

At this stage of the development, I think it's highly unlikely that the AE Team has concocted a Resource dependence/requirements model which is "broken" or too complicated to understand. We are seeing a tiny snapshot in the course of an AAR - lets' not draw any global-level conclusions from that.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 94

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 6:24:25 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Glad to see you can keep older aircraft in production!

Can you do anything other than double a factories production, like increase by the number of airframes?

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 95

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 6:29:57 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Nope.

_____________________________

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 96

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 6:36:03 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
Just to clarify: the increased supply demands in AE of the Japanease industry is used to reflect the need for non-military supply to come back to the Home Islands?

A more accurate way to put it is that the overall demands of the Japanese industry (both civilian and military) are included in the calculations for AE.

quote:

And I have no idea how to get numbers that Barb posted above, but is this about the same feel that you get in AE? In other words, that about 1/2 of your total shipping is being used to run supplies?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

This will need to be answered by those playtesting the game.

Andrew

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 97

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 8:07:03 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

This game we are playing with "Realistic R&D" which is a settable option in the at start options screen. What this means is I cant convert any R&D factories to aircraft actually producing. More importantly I cant switch actual production to R&D so I have to be careful about whats being developed.

I expanded the Vals to 48 aircraft (36 currently damaged). I switched all my Nates over to Oscars (adding 37). I jacked up my Zeros by 32, and put the Mabel into production with 42. Doubled my Betty production to 50, raised my Mavis production from 6 to 24. Sallys doubled to 46, added 32 Dinahs to the 11 they have at start, added 42 Topsys to the 6 they have and shut off my 31 Lily-1s. I didnt do a lot with R&D factories, but I did add a few Helens and A6M3s.

Engine factories I had to crank up Ha-33 production a lot. I am going to need 257 so I jacked that up as much as it would allow. I started with 65 and it would only let me add 165 more so Im sitting short about 27 on these but I can live with that.

I needed Ha-5s for the added Topsys so I converted a Hitachi that I didnt need anymore to these. Ha-31s were also brought up by 40 by converting an older type. My Ha-35 production is running far more than I need. I have 180 and I need 152. These are Zero and Oscar engines.

This is all I will modify in regard to production at this time. I will revist it once a month just after the first of the month and make adjustments.

_____________________________

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 98

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 9:44:10 AM

fabertong

Posts: 4546
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline

'Realistic r&d'.....what a great idea...........so much to love about AE.........so many new things........I'd take my hat off to you all.....if I had a hat.......

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 99

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 10:10:03 AM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Hmmm qestion will the manual have upgrade paths and such shown???

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to fabertong)

Post #: 100

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 11:56:03 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Hmmm qestion will the manual have upgrade paths and such shown???

Dont need it in the manual and the manual wouldnt be accurate for mods. Everything you need to know is on the aircraft replacement pool screen.

Look at the example below:
The A6M3 (red line) comes on line 6/42 (yellow line). Just to the right of the date available you will see an "upgrade to" column. This is the plane that the A6M3 upgrades to. In this case it is the A6M3a (which is the next line down). The A6M3a comes on line 12/42 meaning your A6M3 factories will auto upgrade then (unless you tell them not to). The 3a upgrades to the A6M5 which you can see is available 8/43 and this upgrades to the A6M5b which is available 6/44 which upgrades to the A6M5c in 10/44 and on to the A6M8 in 8/45.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Przemcio231)

Post #: 101

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 11:59:30 AM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Cool thanks:)

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 102

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 1:16:39 PM

Kaletsch2007

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

YH,
firstly, thanks again to you (and everybody else involved) for giving us the possibility to have a look into AE. It still makes the waiting harder, but it shortens my days a lot.
Two questions:
Why are you not going for DAVAO ?
CAYAGAN is a level 3 airfield, right ? If so, is the AirHQ the reason for making it a torpedo-bomber capable airfield ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The attack on the lower PI:

Straightforward charge. The 2nd tank regiment will land at Butuan ("A") which is a level 3 port. 65th bde will land shortly after at Cayagan ("B"), with 15 nav gd and an airfield co landing on Jolo ("C"). An air HQ and a air base forces will be following up at Cayagan to establish a torpedo armed Betty base here. A naval base forces will land at Butuan to help repair ships. Tankers will accompany the base force for patrol refueling. The Ryujo (group "D") will cover the landings.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 103

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 1:28:53 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Cayagan is a level 4 field. Davao is a level 2 but a level 3 port. Im not going there this time because I went there last time and I expect the Houston, Marblehead, and Boise to be waiting down there this time.

And yes, the HQ is for the torps.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 2/26/2009 1:29:07 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Kaletsch2007)

Post #: 104

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 1:32:27 PM

Kaletsch2007

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

Thanks for the fast reply !!!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 105

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 2:18:01 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Japanese air production (PDUs on):

Torpedo Bombers:
B4Y (Jean) v B5M (Mabel) v B5N1 (Kate) v B5N2 (Kate). Japs start with no TBs in production. The Kate 1s and 2s are even R&D aircraft at start (although you have some in your pool at start) not coming on-line until 4/42. The only good thing to say about the Jean is it carries a torpedo. The Mabel is actually over all your best B5 model because of maneuverability and range. I will convert some factories to the B5M (40-50 I would say).

I can see some justification for there being no B5N production at the outbreak of war - all the lines had indeed been shut down, and attack plane construction was indeed a bottleneck.

However, both B5N1's and B5N2's had been in production pre-war, so all necessary jigs and fixtures were available. I can't see a basis for saying the Japanese would have had to take nearly four months to dig them out and get the lines re-started if the demand was there. If we're expected to manage japanese production, let us get on with managing it: the game should not be a re-run of Japanese production as it was, but should reflect what we can make of it.

The effects of this may be mitigated depending on the extent to which the Japanese player can draw from the pre-war production pool or swap to the front line units a/c from training units - which was what the Japanese actually had to do. How big is the pool of available B5N's? How many in training units?

_____________________________

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 106

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 2:20:36 PM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

A more accurate way to put it is that the overall demands of the Japanese industry (both civilian and military) are included in the calculations for AE.

Thats going to make a tremendous difference. Great to see that in there.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 107

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 3:56:31 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Concerning G3M it had its offensive weapons outside so it is expect a speed and range hit.

Ida and Sonias with less one engine(less expensive) might be good to do CAS instead of Ki48. What are the offensive loads of them? Maybe they should be classified fighter bombers?

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 108

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 4:29:12 PM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

What is A6M2 Sen Baku available 44-02?

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 109

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 4:53:48 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Edit - moved one other question to the Air Thread.

Edited again - because I'm an idiot. :) Never mind, nothing to see here.

< Message edited by Grotius -- 2/26/2009 4:57:38 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 110

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 5:11:51 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

I counted 79 hits in that report. As 144 B5N flew, if exactly 4/6 were on Port Attack, that makes 96 torpedoes launched.

Im assuming some of those 79 hits are FOW, but even then, if we go by 60 actual hits, its still a 60-65% hit rate. Impressive.

Also, I note that neither of those two 'lost' CLs were in the actual report, meaning its not that hard to figure out when wrong ships get posted. Same for the 'Colorado' in the sunk ships report, its reported as West Virginia in the combat report.

90 torpedoes are missing from the supplies on the carriers. Which is nearly a 90% hit ratio. This is the purpose of testing and tweeking

90% sounds high, but in all honesty, the ships at PH are literally sitting ducks. I wonder how high the hit % would be against moving targets?

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 111

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 5:19:44 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

Right now only 5500 of Kyushus excess resources is reaching Honshu. The remaining 20,000 per day will have to be shipped over. And thats just getting started. That still puts us over 90,000 a day short.

Per Day?

Thats's 2.73 million per month ((90K x 365) / 12), 32.85 million per year (90K x 365) for just resources for one of the Japanese islands (Honshu)!

Does Japan even have the shipping to move 2.73 million resources per month? I don't think I've ever moved more than a couple of 100K of resources per month in WITP? This doesn't include moving troops, supplies, oil, fuel, or aircraft. Is it even possible to load and unload that much 90K per day with the new loading system?

This is in 1941, with no expansion of Japanese industry, what hell are these numbers like in 1943 or 1944?

This is starting to sound more like solving the US budget deficit, instead of a war game.

Note that these values are still being reviewed and adjusted, but the end result should be that the Japanese need to import approximately 40-50 thousand resources per day to the home islands from elsewhere. This does not account for transfers between the home islands (such as between Hokkaido and Honshu). These are historical values, and yes they are much greater than in the current game.

In short, the current game underrates the amount of resources the Japanese needed to haul around by about an order of magnitude. Another way I have seen this described by players on this forum is that the civilian economy is not modelled in WitP - that is, many of the resources that the Japanese required to run their economy were not represented in WitP, so they didn't need to use the ships to transport them either. That is one thing we have corrected in AE.

Regarding the question as to whether the Japanese have enough ships to move the resources around - yes they do.

Andrew

So basically I will no longer have ~400 AKs sitting in ports doing nothing, as I currently do with CHS. More to protect, more juicy targets for Allied subs. JFBs will actually have to develope good ASW skills and proper convoys. Sounds like a challenge.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 112

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 5:23:23 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Actually:
In november 1941 Japans total shipping amounted to 6,720,000 grt of ships over 100 tons. Servicable were 5,980,000 grt including 360,000 grt of tankers

of these 3 milions grt of shipping was reserved for nonmilitary use.
Army get 2,100,000grt until end of march, then figures were lowered each month to reach 1 milion grt at july.
Navy got 1,800,000grt each month (270,000 grt of tankers included)

Just to clarify: the increased supply demands in AE of the Japanease industry is used to reflect the need for non-military supply to come back to the Home Islands?

And I have no idea how to get numbers that Barb posted above, but is this about the same feel that you get in AE? In other words, that about 1/2 of your total shipping is being used to run supplies?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

Barb�s numbers are pretty good � close enuf. Here�s what we used for AE.

AE has 1169 of the 1435 freighters, representing 4,214,770 of the 4,424,000 grt totals. We didn�t dial down to all of the dinky ones; they would be xAKL and unusable by the AI and who wants to herd a gazillion ants. Their sum total capacity shortfall is less than 5%.. We have almost all the passenger ships and tankers. Cargo capacity, in metric (game) tons is significantly less than GRT.

Japan cargo ships have a switch �AK carry troops� that converts 1/3 of cargo capacity to troop space (creating a quasi AP), to model Japanese usage of xAKs early war. Takes 7 � 14 days to do, and is �Reversible�, you can switch back when you return to cargo service.

Large/fast/modern (high capacity) xAKs �may� convert to Naval auxiliaries (AS, AV, AR, etc..), but this is not �Reversible�, once done, it is for forever. So the merchant fleet is a wasting asset. Enthusiastic over-conversion will cause serious import issues.

Worked very closely with Andrew Brown to match capacity with requirements. We wished to force the actual dilemma onto the game � do I move resources, or do I invade everything in sight. Think we have succeeded.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 113

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 5:44:32 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

WOW! I can tell that playing as Japan just got alot more complex!

I think in WITP, playing Japan is somewhat more complex than the Allies, because of the production decisions you have to make. Is it fair to say that this gap has WIDENED in AE? Or do the Allies have alot more production complexities to manage as well?

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 114

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 6:19:03 PM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

WOW!

Thats amazing JWE. Thanks for the reply. Crazy changes. Did we mention that we cant wait?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 115

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 6:36:22 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

I don�t really think so Q-Ball. The production system, per se, isn�t radically different. On one level, if you are content to leave well enough alone, the game plays pretty much like WiTP-1. Tracker/Decoder will still show how much of what needs to go where and when; saiew.

On another level, with careful, judicious attention to the game�s flexibility, you will achieve better than nominal results with the Japanese. This is the more complex part and the more fun.

The actual production part hasn�t really changed, but what has changed is �what you can do� with the output. You are a military commander, not an industrialist, so the thought, care, and planning process goes into fleet make-up, aircraft selection, etc..

What we did do was remove the opportunity for the bizarre. No more shutting down the merchant shipyards to gain HI points (believe me, you are going to need the yards). No more gazillion assault transports humping armys to invade everything in sight (believe me, you are going to need them to hump resources).

We think this system will appeal to the military aficionados out there, when put in the context of a strategic game, like WiTP. You can do a little, or a lot. And as you get better, the possibilities open vast new vistas. Just be careful of the cliff.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 116

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 7:49:03 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

p.s. the same goes for the allies to some extent no more shoving 100+ British/Dutch AK's to the SOPAC for an early attack they are now needed to convoy supply, fuel and men from off map bases to India or from India to the front.

Also protecting them is a full time job...

Allies don't get the xAK to quasi xAP conversion so you need to look after the AP's you get to bring troops from Aden, Capetown and Mombasa to India.

Until the Middle East opens up and Aden starts getting convoys arriving supplies all need to be humped from Capetown and Fuel from Abadan

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 117

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 8:17:43 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

p.s. the same goes for the allies to some extent no more shoving 100+ British/Dutch�AK's to the SOPAC for an early attack they are now needed to convoy�supply, fuel�and men from off map bases to India or from India to the front.

Also protecting them is a full time job...

Allies don't get the xAK to quasi xAP conversion so you need to look after the AP's you get to bring troops from Aden, Capetown and Mombasa to India.

Until the Middle East opens up and Aden starts getting convoys arriving supplies all need to be humped from Capetown and Fuel from Abadan

If you want to get a feel for the troopship shortages faced by the allies and the difficulties of sending supplies to the Middle East and India when enemy air made the Mediteranean, may I suggest Winston Specials, Troopships via the Cape by Archie Munro. ISBN 1-904459-20-x.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 118

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 10:07:22 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

A more accurate way to put it is that the overall demands of the Japanese industry (both civilian and military) are included in the calculations for AE.

Thats going to make a tremendous difference. Great to see that in there.

Yes, more targets for US subs!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 119

RE: YH v TS - round 3 <no 8 legged creatures> - 2/26/2009 10:14:39 PM

kfmiller41

Posts: 1063
Joined: 3/25/2003
From: Saint Marys, Ga
Status: offline

I am very much looking forward to the release of AE. The changes all look for the better. As a Japanese player most of the time my one feverent hope is that there will be some competent computer control of some of this shipping at least in the rear areas so it is not to overwhelming. I have no problem with some level of mocromanagement (anyone hwo plays this has to be willing to have some

) but as was said earlier if it becomes to much then it is work, and I can get paid to work at work

If I can get the economy up and running and convoys setup in the home island areas that work with just a little oversight then I can concentrate on doing all the little things everywhere else and not have my home front fall apart