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: fuel to Oz question

 
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: fuel to Oz question Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 6:42:11 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

I also usually have Brit Convoys coming either from Cape Town or Colombo. A fast convoy of mixed AKs and TKs (16-17 speed range) is the main hauler and I usually direct it through the Cocos Islands to either Darwin or Perth.

Now that I'm trying to hold Java, Darwin has become even more important as the short legged supply convoys can operate a short route in Soerbaja/Tiljap (ok you know the base I'm referring to!).



If you still have Java your situaiton is quite different than if you had lost it. The Cocos route is completely untenable if the AI has Oosthaven; it makes it a huge Betty base and can reach out to much of the normal, non-waypointed CT--Perth routes. The Cocos are a happy hunting ground. You need to route tankers almost to the western map edge on the trip south to avoid the Betties.

Also, sending Abbadan and Aden fuel convoys to western Oz is OK until the AI scripts activate to send big carrier raiders into the IO (well north of Diego Garcia in my experience) and crush some precious tankers.

As others have said, a lot of the fuel strategy is personal preference. I think that building beautiful, complex way-stations east-west is nice, but by the time you have them humming, you usually don't need them (you have Tarawa back for example.) In the very early days of 1941--winter 1942, the AI floods the San Diego--LA area with subs as well, and your ASW is throwing fluffy pillows at them. Losing even 5-6 tankers here early hurts a lot.

I'm of the off-map camp myself. It's slower, and you have to redistribute in-theater from Perth, Adelaide, etc., and Sydney HI does suck up a lot of your effort, but it saves ships. I played a GC against the AI through August 1945, and to the very last day I didn't have enough tankers. I lamented those lost in the first six months through the whole war. Whatever else recommends against the off-map routes, those ships are safe for most of the trip.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 31
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 7:00:59 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		In every game I have played up till now, I've always held Cocos Islands. Like Canton Island I think its one of the key positions on the map. Even after losing Java, Catalinas operating from Cocos alerted me of possible Japanese incursions as well.

BTW in my games I've never seen big carrier raiders in the Indian Ocean. Admittidely, I would sacrifice almost anything in the DEI in the first 2 months just to damage Japanese carriers, so most end up in docks, either in Singapore, Truk or HI. Maybe that is why I've never seen such raids. Maybe its a particular script that activates such raids or are they normal occurances?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 32
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 7:13:03 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

In every game I have played up till now, I've always held Cocos Islands. Like Canton Island I think its one of the key positions on the map. Even after losing Java, Catalinas operating from Cocos alerted me of possible Japanese incursions as well.

BTW in my games I've never seen big carrier raiders in the Indian Ocean. Admittidely, I would sacrifice almost anything in the DEI in the first 2 months just to damage Japanese carriers, so most end up in docks, either in Singapore, Truk or HI. Maybe that is why I've never seen such raids. Maybe its a particular script that activates such raids or are they normal occurances?


I held Cocos too, but they were difficult to re-supply in the face of Betty raids from Oosthaven. (Did I mention the AI loves to put Betties in Oosthaven?)
I'd get some fighters in the Cocos to cover re-supply efforts, and they got pounded to mush every time. Resupply from Perth is a pretty long haul, and I wasn't prepared to assign mobile air cover, so they were a crap shoot. Tankers coming south from the Midlle East I thought were safe from Betties weren't.

The IO carrier raids are definately a script you may or may not get. I had two big "periods" of IO raids, one in early 1943 (based from Batavia I think, not sure.) The other was near the end of the war when the AI sent suicide runs of the Akagi and two DDs way up north, almost to the exit chutes from Aden. This one didn't survive, but the point is the AI tried it. I also sank a fair number of subs hanging around Karachi and points west (exit chutes), and dozens of ASW prosecutions between Colombo and Bombay. Tankers form the Middle East need to be routed far to the west as they come south, which means long-legged tankers. Shoving into Colombo to re-fuel going or coming back can be fatal if the AI has subs nearby.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 33
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 7:59:13 PM   
vinnie71

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Interesting. Thanks for the tips!

I have had several submarine attacks upon Colombo, despite the fact that I filled the place with mines (obviously AI sub must have dived beneath the mines). At least 3 times in 42 I believe, and usually there were two subs in tandem, one coming straight in Colombo and the other launching mini subs. MLs and DDs present really had a field day....

As to Betties in the DEI I never got them. Most of the Jap airforce ended up in malaya, Burma and Thailand engaged against the bulk of Commonwealth airforces + American reinforcements.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 34
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 8:20:31 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		I have experienced an early war nasty surprise at Canton, Is. and Pago Pago.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 35
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 8:31:26 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		I use the short-legged tankers to stockpile fuel from LA at PH and from Abadan at Colombo. Then I use long-legged tankers from PH to Oz with a waypoint at Bora-Bora as a refueling stop. I have a few small AOs stationed at Bora-Bora which are refilled by a PH-BB shuttle of short-legged tankers). From Colombo other long-legged tankers go to Perth with waypoints along the map edge. No stockpiling in Perth, the fuel goes via rail to Sydney etc.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 7/21/2010 8:45:42 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 36
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 10:27:01 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Interesting. Thanks for the tips!

I have had several submarine attacks upon Colombo, despite the fact that I filled the place with mines (obviously AI sub must have dived beneath the mines). At least 3 times in 42 I believe, and usually there were two subs in tandem, one coming straight in Colombo and the other launching mini subs. MLs and DDs present really had a field day....



I also had multiple forays of mini-subs against ports on the Indian mainland, but not Karachi. I have no idea how those are scripted, or if local ASW (such as YPs in the port hex) is effective in stopping them. I don't think any ever got a shot off. Mostly they ran aground, or got into ASW nets (as seen in the Ops Reports.)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to vinnie71)
Post #: 37
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/21/2010 10:40:29 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I use the short-legged tankers to stockpile fuel from LA at PH and from Abadan at Colombo. 


For players early in their first GC game:

I got PH up to 5.5 million fuel once, and thought I was in the high cotton. It was fine for the Gilberts and Marshalls, and dinking around in the Solomons. I thought I was King Fuel when I had two (TWO!!!!) CV TFs running around near Rabaul, with a couple of old BBs at Lae.

Then I invaded the Marianas. With EXTREME effort I got Saipan to 2.2 million, and considered moving on the PI. But by fall 1944, I had twelve CVs in the area, with escorts, and a 15-BB bombardment TF. I went through a million fuel in two weeks. A million.

Once I got Manilla occupied I tried to get enough there to shift main ops from Saipan (bigger port, a shipyard of sorts), but I never got even a million into Manila, even though I had Balikpapan by then. The kamis ate the Balikpapan convoys alive, unless I routed them halfway back to Saipan and then west, destroying a lot of the utility of a forward fuel supply. If I put multiple CVEs with the tankers the kamis ate them first, then the tankers. The OpTempo in 1945 uses fantastic amounts of fuel. Stupendous amounts.

Guard your early tankers like the crown jewels. In 1945 I would have traded 50 APAs for 20 big tankers. I never got to where I wasn't hauling fuel in xAKs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 38
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 2:27:34 PM   
karmannkc


Posts: 62
Joined: 12/21/2008
Status: offline 		I'm curious as it has yet to be mentioned, but I seem to have a great deal of success with combining my TKs with my long haul xAKs in large Sydney/Melbourne & Auckland bound convoys. This gives my TKs the legs to make it from the WC and gives them added protection from subs as there a lot more targets for the subs to shoot at rather then just my TKs. Or is this a violation of some house rule or something?

But if you need to use bases to create different legs of your supply journey, Pago Pago is a good start, but if you are like me, your transport fleets keep getting bogged down by overwhelming your port docking limits, I would recommend building another supply hub at Vava'u which is a little bit south and west of Pago Pago, and you can build her up to a level 6 port. If you need yet another port then consider Savii as well, back in the Samoan Islands, can also be made into a level 5 port. The less time your fleets spend waiting for their turn in line to unload fuel and supply the more efficient your supply lines will be.

< Message edited by karmannkc -- 7/30/2010 2:31:11 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 39
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 3:59:19 PM   
Thayne

 

Posts: 748
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline 		I dislike taking the time to unload one tanker just to load the fuel into another tanker.

Once cargo (fuel or supplies) gets loaded onto any type of ship, it stays on that ship until it reaches its destination.

Ships with lower-endurance have their destinations set closer to the fuel depots than higher-endurance ships.

This includes transport ships travelling from USA East Coast to Cape Town. After arriving in Cape Town. They do not unload at Cape Town. Instead, they continue on to their destination.

Cape Town is a destination for some tankers operating out of Abadan. So far, it has not needed fuel from USA East Coast to refuel its cargo ships.

For refueling stations, I set them as close to the sources of fuel as I can so that ships leaving there can make a round trip to the desination and back on one tank of fuel.

Using this system, I can move hubs relatively easy if one becomes threatened, or if shorter supply routes become available. I do not need to worry about building up ports - nor do I need to worry about spoilage (except at desination points).

Exception: Front-line bases under the enemy air umbrella. I use smaller short-range transports travelling individually (not in convoy) for these missions, picking up cargo from a nearby hub. I am disinclined to risk larger transport ships on these missions. Plus, I have been finding (though it may be an illusion) that the enemy is less interested in attacking smaller cargo ships.

< Message edited by Thayne -- 7/30/2010 4:00:59 PM >

(in reply to toselli)
Post #: 40
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 4:52:23 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		Setting up fuel hubs across the Pacific is my verison of some peoples' pilot training. I'd rather watch grass grow. (As I am now, rather than mowing it. Hi, hon.)

It matters which era you're talking about, but I'm finding, in my second pass through a GC, that the ASW picture off the WC hasn't changed much from Patch 1 days. The USN has virtually no ASW ships to spare, those they have are rated "2", and tankers are lunchmeat for Japanese subs anywhere on the southern US coastline. I'm still moving the majority of my fuel off-map.

FWIW, I'm experimenting with Port Stanley. It's pretty small for loading, but it's "safe" for launching long-haul westbound fuel. You can safely resupply it from Balboa off-map, and Balboa from the East Coast. It takes awhile to fill up the pipeline with two off-map routes, but once you do it might be a bridge for 1942 until I can clean out Tarawa. Just an experiment. Most is still going EC to CT to Perth/Colombo, and Abadan--Colombo.

As for those who like Abadan--Perth, just wait. Don't say I didn't warn you!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to karmannkc)
Post #: 41
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 5:12:32 PM   
jay102

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline 		What's the Oz HI good for? It just consume 2 fuel to produce 2 supply? Why don't you just turn off the HI and hauling more supply instead? The xAKs are plenty while tankers are precious.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 42
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 5:33:04 PM   
Thayne

 

Posts: 748
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

What's the Oz HI good for? It just consume 2 fuel to produce 2 supply? Why don't you just turn off the HI and hauling more supply instead? The xAKs are plenty while tankers are precious.



For me . . . .

It's because I think that an order for the government to stop the production of war materials during wartime is insane.

The game rules might not adequately reflect this requirement, but I have a personal "house rule" - even against the AI - against turnng off the production of military equipment during wartime.

Yes. I know that fuel is an important war material as well and people have to make choices. However, one of those choices is, by 1941, Australia was seriously lamenting the fact that it did not have the ability to manufacture its own guns and ammunition to arm its troops and had to import those materials. Australia wanted a war industry.

I even have to try to get oil to Australia where possible.

But that's just me.

< Message edited by Thayne -- 7/30/2010 5:35:06 PM >

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 43
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 6:59:50 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

What's the Oz HI good for? It just consume 2 fuel to produce 2 supply? Why don't you just turn off the HI and hauling more supply instead? The xAKs are plenty while tankers are precious.


Do you really think that if it could be turned off we would leave it on?

_____________________________


(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 44
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 7:02:53 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Setting up fuel hubs across the Pacific is my verison of some peoples' pilot training. I'd rather watch grass grow. (As I am now, rather than mowing it. Hi, hon.)

It matters which era you're talking about, but I'm finding, in my second pass through a GC, that the ASW picture off the WC hasn't changed much from Patch 1 days. The USN has virtually no ASW ships to spare, those they have are rated "2", and tankers are lunchmeat for Japanese subs anywhere on the southern US coastline. I'm still moving the majority of my fuel off-map.

FWIW, I'm experimenting with Port Stanley. It's pretty small for loading, but it's "safe" for launching long-haul westbound fuel. You can safely resupply it from Balboa off-map, and Balboa from the East Coast. It takes awhile to fill up the pipeline with two off-map routes, but once you do it might be a bridge for 1942 until I can clean out Tarawa. Just an experiment. Most is still going EC to CT to Perth/Colombo, and Abadan--Colombo.

As for those who like Abadan--Perth, just wait. Don't say I didn't warn you!


Why ship to Balboa and then to Port Stanley? Just ship from EUSA to Port Stanley directly. Using Cristobal is better, it can be built to a size 7 port and has 50 Naval Support permanently assigned ( the NS will not help with fuel but supply ).

< Message edited by Nomad -- 7/30/2010 7:03:29 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 45
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 7:06:53 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

What's the Oz HI good for? It just consume 2 fuel to produce 2 supply? Why don't you just turn off the HI and hauling more supply instead? The xAKs are plenty while tankers are precious.


Unlike Japan, an Allied player cannot turn off industrial production.

The only way the Heavy Industry in Australia would not produce supplies is if it lacks the raw materials. There is a surplus of resources there but a shortage of oil -> fuel so not transporting fuel to Australia would severely curtail (but not completely stop) the running of Heavy Industry. However you have to import huge quantities of fuel to Australia otherwise your navy runs dry quite quickly. The player has no power to stop fuel, earmarked for navy consumption, from being hijacked to feed the Heavy Industry.

In any case, all those xAKs you intend to send to Australia with supplies can also carry fuel to Australia, either as 100% of their cargo, or for the long legged xAKs, as a small additional component.

Alfred

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 46
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 7:49:11 PM   
jay102

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: jay102

What's the Oz HI good for? It just consume 2 fuel to produce 2 supply? Why don't you just turn off the HI and hauling more supply instead? The xAKs are plenty while tankers are precious.


Unlike Japan, an Allied player cannot turn off industrial production.

The only way the Heavy Industry in Australia would not produce supplies is if it lacks the raw materials. There is a surplus of resources there but a shortage of oil -> fuel so not transporting fuel to Australia would severely curtail (but not completely stop) the running of Heavy Industry. However you have to import huge quantities of fuel to Australia otherwise your navy runs dry quite quickly. The player has no power to stop fuel, earmarked for navy consumption, from being hijacked to feed the Heavy Industry.

In any case, all those xAKs you intend to send to Australia with supplies can also carry fuel to Australia, either as 100% of their cargo, or for the long legged xAKs, as a small additional component.

Alfred


Sorry I forget Allied player cannot turn off HI. But you can still use Noumea as fuel depot to support your SOPAC operation. The Oz heavy industry should shut off without fuel anyway.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 47
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 10:55:32 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Most is still going EC to CT to Perth/Colombo, and Abadan--Colombo.

How many ships do you use for your off-map convoys? Tankers, or xAKs?

BTW, according to the manual, the UK base is closer to Capetown than Eastern USA (152/170 hexes). UK doesn't produce much fuel though (500/day), but as long as there's a stockpile you can save a couple of days.

< Message edited by VSWG -- 7/30/2010 10:56:01 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 48
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 11:03:37 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: jay102

What's the Oz HI good for? It just consume 2 fuel to produce 2 supply? Why don't you just turn off the HI and hauling more supply instead? The xAKs are plenty while tankers are precious.


If you know a way to turn it off, please, please post it.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 49
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 11:11:05 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Why ship to Balboa and then to Port Stanley? Just ship from EUSA to Port Stanley directly. Using Cristobal is better, it can be built to a size 7 port and has 50 Naval Support permanently assigned ( the NS will not help with fuel but supply ).


I hadn't tried or checked on this. I had assumed that, like trying to go Aden--CT or EC--San Diego (you can't), you needed the interim base in the path. I'll have to re-look at the off-map grid in the manual. If it can be done then yes, going through the Canal Zone is dumb. I'm pretty good at that.

Although the range from EC to Port Stanley might require all long-legged ships. Hmm.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/30/2010 11:29:52 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 50
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 11:18:47 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: jay102

Sorry I forget Allied player cannot turn off HI. But you can still use Noumea as fuel depot to support your SOPAC operation.


If you're coming from the east, yes. There are several options for fuel dumps westbound--NZ, Suva, Noumea, Tasmania for several. But if you're coming from CT, running it to Noumea not only burns up a lot of the effort fueling the ships, but the AI runs LOTS of subs into the channels near Adelaide, Melbourne, and Tasmania, and you don't have ASW to do anything about them in 1942. Running the fuel into Perth "wastes" a lot of it in HI production, but the ships are mostly safe, and they can turn around for another run weeks earlier than if they had to run the gauntlet to Noumea.

I personally don't like running fuel from the west coast to SOPAC becasue I don't want to hassle with fuel way-stations, plus, the subs near southern California eat up tankers in early 1942, even when they're escorted. In my first game I lost a bunch of early tankers that way, and I never stopped regretting it. I like off-map better. But it's personal preference.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 51
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/30/2010 11:29:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Most is still going EC to CT to Perth/Colombo, and Abadan--Colombo.

How many ships do you use for your off-map convoys? Tankers, or xAKs?

BTW, according to the manual, the UK base is closer to Capetown than Eastern USA (152/170 hexes). UK doesn't produce much fuel though (500/day), but as long as there's a stockpile you can save a couple of days.


I'm still in mid-January 1942 and tweaking/repositioning. I'd say I have 50-60 or so big ships building up CT now, and about 20 hauling to Perth/Colombo. The first numbered convoy to CT has come and gone, and it helped a lot. Most of that fuel is headed east to Perth and Colombo already.

I use all the long-range tankers I have and got out of the DEI/PI, plus most of the 9000 ton-and-above xAKs. I leave the smaller xAKs and xAKLs in Perth to run supplies around the coast, especially to Darwin through fall 1942, then see where I am.

In my first game I ran UK dry without noticing it, trying to supply CT from there. There's about 150k in the UK I think, but as you say it doesn't build very fast. Going through there you save some hexes, but you incur a one-time cost of an extra off-load time as you fill up the snake. I prefer the KISS principal and just go EC to CT with CS convoys. Sometime in mid-1942 I'll look at xAK damage/upgrades and see where the numbered convoys have left me in CT. At that point I'll probably move most of the long-leg xAKs to Sydney to support the Solomons fight.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 52
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/31/2010 12:45:17 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Why ship to Balboa and then to Port Stanley? Just ship from EUSA to Port Stanley directly. Using Cristobal is better, it can be built to a size 7 port and has 50 Naval Support permanently assigned ( the NS will not help with fuel but supply ).


I hadn't tried or checked on this. I had assumed that, like trying to go Aden--CT or EC--San Diego (you can't), you needed the interim base in the path. I'll have to re-look at the off-map grid in the manual. If it can be done then yes, going through the Canal Zone is dumb. I'm pretty good at that.

Although the range from EC to Port Stanley might require all long-legged ships. Hmm.


Range doesn't matter for off map only movement. It is assumed that the ships can refuel off map. I use the short legged TKs to run fuel from EUSA to CT with no problems. I think I tried using xAKLs with only 4000 endurance and they made it fine. Note that ships with a cruise speed of 10,11,12,13 will all take the same amount of time moving off map. They will all move 6 "hexes" per turn. Ships with a cruise speed of 14+ will move at 8 "hexes" per turn. So I use my slow, short legged xAKs and TKs for off map movement. If they are going to enter the map, then I use the faster, longer ranged ships.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 53
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/31/2010 12:46:50 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Most is still going EC to CT to Perth/Colombo, and Abadan--Colombo.

How many ships do you use for your off-map convoys? Tankers, or xAKs?

BTW, according to the manual, the UK base is closer to Capetown than Eastern USA (152/170 hexes). UK doesn't produce much fuel though (500/day), but as long as there's a stockpile you can save a couple of days.


I'm still in mid-January 1942 and tweaking/repositioning. I'd say I have 50-60 or so big ships building up CT now, and about 20 hauling to Perth/Colombo. The first numbered convoy to CT has come and gone, and it helped a lot. Most of that fuel is headed east to Perth and Colombo already.

I use all the long-range tankers I have and got out of the DEI/PI, plus most of the 9000 ton-and-above xAKs. I leave the smaller xAKs and xAKLs in Perth to run supplies around the coast, especially to Darwin through fall 1942, then see where I am.

In my first game I ran UK dry without noticing it, trying to supply CT from there. There's about 150k in the UK I think, but as you say it doesn't build very fast. Going through there you save some hexes, but you incur a one-time cost of an extra off-load time as you fill up the snake. I prefer the KISS principal and just go EC to CT with CS convoys. Sometime in mid-1942 I'll look at xAK damage/upgrades and see where the numbered convoys have left me in CT. At that point I'll probably move most of the long-leg xAKs to Sydney to support the Solomons fight.


Why move fuel from CT to Colombo? You have 15,000 fuel per day piling up at Abadan that can be used for India and Colombos needs. Fuel at CT needs to go to Australia.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 54
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/31/2010 5:28:30 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Range doesn't matter for off map only movement. It is assumed that the ships can refuel off map. I use the short legged TKs to run fuel from EUSA to CT with no problems. I think I tried using xAKLs with only 4000 endurance and they made it fine. Note that ships with a cruise speed of 10,11,12,13 will all take the same amount of time moving off map. They will all move 6 "hexes" per turn. Ships with a cruise speed of 14+ will move at 8 "hexes" per turn. So I use my slow, short legged xAKs and TKs for off map movement. If they are going to enter the map, then I use the faster, longer ranged ships.


You are correct, of course. I had forgotten this because for about the last eight months of real time I had been running off-map to Aden and then continuing with the same ships to Colombo and Rangoon, so range was a factor. I'll need to re-jigger some of those fairly useless TAN tankers.

And thanks for the heads-up on EC to Port Stanley. I had overlooked that as I never really did anything with PS before. I was sure you needed to route through a closer off-map base like the Canal Zone.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/31/2010 5:35:36 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 55
RE: fuel to Oz question - 7/31/2010 5:33:58 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Why move fuel from CT to Colombo? You have 15,000 fuel per day piling up at Abadan that can be used for India and Colombos needs. Fuel at CT needs to go to Australia.


I don't have enough hulls in the Abadan region to supply Colombo, and those I have are mostly hauling supplies to support auto-convoy formation. I have eight AC convoys sitting empy, formed but unable to load. I've also decided to try to hold Rangoon, and it only has 35, 000 supply right now. I also am burnng a lot of fuel in the evacuation of Singapore. I'm flying small chunks of everything to Medan, converting them to Strat., training them to Sabang, and sending 1-AP TFs (many, many) to pick them up and run them to Colombo. I'm racing LBA (so far I've managed to keep the AI looking, and bombing, Port Blair, but that won't last) so I'm takling a lot of round trips getting Aussie, British, Indian, and Dutch cadre out of Singapore.

Perth fuel can wait. I have at least two months before I'll need much fuel in that theater. I have 2-CVs and 4 BBs in Brisbane and Sydney with mostly full bunkers if there's an emergency.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/31/2010 5:36:14 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 56
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: fuel to Oz question Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.704