Damn, that is a LOT of shipS!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Damn, that is a LOT of shipS!

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 >> Damn, that is a LOT of shipS!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 3:52:46 PM

KPAX

Posts: 735
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline

Doing my first turn for my first game with AE. Played the original game a lot in the past.

I remeber tons of Allied ships in the orginal, but dear lordy, AE has TONS more. Spend hours trying to find them all and get them moving.

Question .... Big picture,

1. How many AKs and TKs should be send into hte "wormhole" from the WC to the EC for CT?

2. How many should be sent to CT from DEI, India?

3. It seems the smaller ones should be used for the WormHole trip is that right?

4. Agai there are tons of ships in major places.... can I get some advise as to big picture what do do with them? Here are my big picture thougts, does this make sense.

India - Some to Aden (?) for the wormhole gift from the gods, rest just dumping in Colombos till I figure out what to do with them all.

DEI - drag oil, fuel, supplies out of the DEI to Darwin as long as I can with some going to CT for hte CS.

OZ - not really sure, get some to Perth and on up to CT for the CS from CT to Oz and start to supply the connecting bases to the WC?

WC and Hawaii - for the EC wormhole and starting to move A.C and troops out of Hawaii and the WC to Oz and the connection point.

5. Just to clarify ..... Send a TF with Fuel/Oil from the WC, via the PC to the EC for the trip to CT. If you want to set that up on a CS so that the WC oil gets dropped off in CT and that TF returns to the WC, with another CS picking it up in CT and bring it to Perth. how exacly do you do that?

This is my guess, not sure if it works......

SEt up a Cargo CS picking up Oil/Fuel with a home base of LA and a destination of CT? Does it know to go via the PC to the EC?

If i have this is messed up can someone tell me how, please?

Or is this a bunch of smaller TF gong from WC --> PC, than another from PC --> EC, and another from EC --> CT, all on CS. Than a pick up from CT to Perth on CS?

I know this a lot in a single post, but much appreciated.

_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)

Thanks !!

KPAX

Post #: 1

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 4:08:41 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

Don't try to move fuel or anything else from the WC to CT. Transit your ships to the EC of the US and run a CS convoy from there to CT, hauling fuel. Have another on the CT - Oz run, and you are in business.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to KPAX)

Post #: 2

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 4:14:19 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

I'll tackle a couple of common misconceptions.

If you are loading up with fuel and supplies on the West Coast, and want to take the long, arguably safer route to India or Australia, sail WC-PC-CT. You don't have to detour to the EC.

Don't try to give orders to a Task Force that involve sailing past one off-map port to get to another. (Exception: you can order your Task Force to either Panama Canal port -- but it is faster if you order it to the nearest port, then (manually) order it to the next port once it arrives.)

You can fully utilize your West Coast merchants and tankers keeping Pearl Harbor, the South Pacific and Australia supplied. If you want a safer route to Australia, move off-map to the Panama Canal, then order the task force to Auckland or Sydney. It is faster than going via Capetown.

Collect your surplus merchants in the Indian Ocean at Capetown, and use some of them to run fuel and supplies from the Eastern US to Capetown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KPAX

Doing my first turn for my first game with AE. Played the original game a lot in the past.

I remeber tons of Allied ships in the orginal, but dear lordy, AE has TONS more. Spend hours trying to find them all and get them moving.

Question .... Big picture,

1. How many AKs and TKs should be send into hte "wormhole" from the WC to the EC for CT?

2. How many should be sent to CT from DEI, India?

3. It seems the smaller ones should be used for the WormHole trip is that right?

4. Agai there are tons of ships in major places.... can I get some advise as to big picture what do do with them? Here are my big picture thougts, does this make sense.

India - Some to Aden (?) for the wormhole gift from the gods, rest just dumping in Colombos till I figure out what to do with them all.

DEI - drag oil, fuel, supplies out of the DEI to Darwin as long as I can with some going to CT for hte CS.

OZ - not really sure, get some to Perth and on up to CT for the CS from CT to Oz and start to supply the connecting bases to the WC?

WC and Hawaii - for the EC wormhole and starting to move A.C and troops out of Hawaii and the WC to Oz and the connection point.

5. Just to clarify ..... Send a TF with Fuel/Oil from the WC, via the PC to the EC for the trip to CT. If you want to set that up on a CS so that the WC oil gets dropped off in CT and that TF returns to the WC, with another CS picking it up in CT and bring it to Perth. how exacly do you do that?

This is my guess, not sure if it works......

SEt up a Cargo CS picking up Oil/Fuel with a home base of LA and a destination of CT? Does it know to go via the PC to the EC?

If i have this is messed up can someone tell me how, please?

Or is this a bunch of smaller TF gong from WC --> PC, than another from PC --> EC, and another from EC --> CT, all on CS. Than a pick up from CT to Perth on CS?

I know this a lot in a single post, but much appreciated.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to KPAX)

Post #: 3

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 4:45:07 PM

AcePylut9

Posts: 31
Joined: 6/4/2011
Status: offline

Turn off Oz's HI so it doesn't burn up all the fuel you push there.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 4

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 5:08:38 PM

JWE

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

Yes. The simplest safe approach is WC to the Ditch and then CT.

Just FYI, that voyage is 15,344nm, from SFO (including the stretch from Capetown to Sydney). Going from SFO to Sydney, with a check stop at Pearl and/or Suva is 6560nm.

Engine CANNOT handle endurance between off-map bases (so don't even ask). Just providing this little tidbit for people who want to play righteous.

< Message edited by JWE -- 5/26/2012 5:10:06 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 5

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 5:12:17 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

It's a bit anal and time consuming, but I move the USN AKs from the Indian Ocean to waters closer to home. I go through all of India and send them all to Cape Town. When they are all there {31 or 32 ships} I load them up with supplies and send them to Sydney before sending them to WC.

(in reply to AcePylut9)

Post #: 6

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 5:36:41 PM

Justus2

Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

I like to gather the larger xAKs that also have some fuel (like 5600 cargo/200 fuel) from DEI/India, and gather them at CT. These form my major EUS-CT route, they bring a ton of supplies and some fuel, or load fuel only (that's 3000 fuel each), a mini-tanker without tying up my good tankers on the off-map route. I agree with what was said above, there are plenty of ships in the Indian ocean, and lots more things I need my WC ships for, so I don't send any thru the canal to CT. (also, EUS generates plenty of fuel on its own, no need to send LA's fuel that way).

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 7

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 6:03:00 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

If you are just starting you do not have enough TK's and AO's and you will not for about 18 months. Be careful with these. You will need them to build up for your late 42 early 43 offensive. The ones in the DEI? Load em once and get them out. All TK convoys get escorts. You can also use xAK's to run fuel. Watch you port sizes. You don't want to run a giant convoy into a level 3 port. It takes forever to unload. The steady run from CT to Perth is essential to keeping Australia stocked with fuel. Once it gets to Perth it will distribute. Same for supply.
It bears repeating. Get your tankers out of harms way. Escort them....always

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Justus2)

Post #: 8

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 6:58:17 PM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

mind your fuel state at Cape Town. don't let TFs arriving there from on-map refuel at all, & give TFs leaving there for on-map a minimal refuel after setting their destination. it's easy to run important ports dry, and that's frustrating!

Abadan is a great source for fuel, set up CS TFs (using the shorter-range TKs) from Abadan to Karachi, it'll pool in Bombay. use long-range TKs to ship fuel from Bombay to Perth, then from Perth to Sydney, and from Sydney to Noumea (or wherever you decide to create your USN forward base).

you'll be able to get some oil out of the DEI to Oz, but when that's used up, it's best to shut down the Oz industry as mentioned above. by mid-42, you'll have a goodly stock of fuel on the West Coast, w/ lots of it moved on to Pearl. now you can shut down the USA refineries for 6 or 8 days, the unused oil will pool in LA. take the TKs off the SF-PH route, and make a big oil shipment from LA to Sydney.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 9

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 7:16:52 PM

Justus2

Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter
you'll be able to get some oil out of the DEI to Oz, but when that's used up, it's best to shut down the Oz industry as mentioned above. by mid-42, you'll have a goodly stock of fuel on the West Coast, w/ lots of it moved on to Pearl. now you can shut down the USA refineries for 6 or 8 days, the unused oil will pool in LA. take the TKs off the SF-PH route, and make a big oil shipment from LA to Sydney.

Why ship Oil from LA-Sydney, just to refine it there, wouldn't it be just as easy to ship the fuel directly? What is the advantage of using Sydney's refineries instead?

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 10

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 8:55:06 PM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

's true, Justus2 - the Allies don't really need to produce anything in Oz, they can ship in as much fuel & supply as they need.

i just sent off a TK TF from LA to Oz w/ 70k oil. once it gets there, tracker will tell me how many days production it'll give me, & i'll be able to decide if it was worth giving up the TK sea-time & fuel use. 'cos if the Oz workers can't be employed, they're gonna get drafted into the infantry.

& hey, i toured LST-325 not so long ago, it was fascinating! she steamed (dieseled?) up the Ohio & docked for a weekend. Drew a huge crowd, the line to go aboard was shocking long. but after standing awhile, a crewman came down the line asking, "Any vets here?" My dad smiled & dug out his ID card, & we got sent to the front of the line!

(in reply to Justus2)

Post #: 11

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/26/2012 9:39:30 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Engine CANNOT handle endurance between off-map bases (so don't even ask). Just providing this little tidbit for people who want to play righteous.

They tried to convince me to use the off-map channels but hmm... my geographic mind revolted

Let's see: fuel from the Middle East to CT and then Perth? Have you guys opened an atlas?? That's a big detour! Sail simply from the Middle east to Perth, across the middle of the Indian Ocean.

As for American shipment, didn't they send convoys to Australia, South Pacific via the Pacific Ocean? This East Coast -> Cape Town -> Perth does not make any sense!

And do not even tell me they can intercept these convoys -as south of Bora Bora latitude, are you sure?

If they can intercept them then I affirm they can intercept the same the convoys from CT to Perth... Ergo, listen to what your atlas is telling you

P.S.: in fact, as for fuel from the Middle East to Australia I think the most efficient thing is 1) convoys from Middle east to Colombo (big port where you CAN repair the tankers) and then other convoys transport this fuel from Colombo to Perth... well, assuming your Japanese opponent is not threatening India

P.P.S: not to mention that the most dangerous route is the one from EC to CT! Remember the U-Boots operating in the Atlantic, ocean which you have to cross to get to Southern Africa... On the other hand the Japanese were ignoring these vital lines of communication. U-Boots are not in the game, ok, but still...

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 5/26/2012 9:47:30 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 12

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/27/2012 12:34:10 AM

Justus2

Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

& hey, i toured LST-325 not so long ago, it was fascinating! she steamed (dieseled?) up the Ohio & docked for a weekend. Drew a huge crowd, the line to go aboard was shocking long. but after standing awhile, a crewman came down the line asking, "Any vets here?" My dad smiled & dug out his ID card, & we got sent to the front of the line!

Yes, we toured it last summer when it came up the Illinois river (that's the ship in my avatar). During WWII, my grandfather was too old for the Army, and already had 4 kids, so instead he went to work at the Seneca shipyard - 'LSTs on the Prairie' built about 100 miles SW of Chicago, and sailed down the Illinois and Mississippi river to New Orleans. (LST 325 was built in Philadelphia, but same type of ship). So it was a bit of family history to take my kids to see it.

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 13

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/27/2012 1:04:16 AM

jmalter

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline

dad & i visited 325 in Pittsburgh. many of her sisters came from the nearby Dravosburg yards, where they were built parallel to the river in 2 banks of 5, facing a central slipway. as each was completed, it would be dragged forward onto the slipway, then launched while still sideways-on.

what's cool about that is when they splooshed into the water, they were traveling faster than they ever would under their own power!

(in reply to Justus2)

Post #: 14

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/27/2012 6:57:47 AM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

KPAX -

Good question; glad to see you on this forum.

Other Posters - this thread is full of excellent advice and once again, reminds me that I am a minnow among the Big Boys. Thank You all for very clear, concise explanations - I will save this info to my AE folder.

Logistics wannabe Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 5/27/2012 6:58:10 AM >

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to KPAX)

Post #: 15

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/27/2012 1:24:03 PM

Dobey455

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

i just sent off a TK TF from LA to Oz w/ 70k oil. once it gets there, tracker will tell me how many days production it'll give me, & i'll be able to decide if it was worth giving up the TK sea-time & fuel use. 'cos if the Oz workers can't be employed, they're gonna get drafted into the infantry.

Problem here is that Aus has very, very little refining capacity so most of that oil will still be waiting to be converted long after the war ends.

(in reply to jmalter)

Post #: 16

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/27/2012 5:57:18 PM

KPAX

Posts: 735
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline

Mac, thaks for the encouraging words ..... Good to be home amoung friends again!!

All the rest of the posters, thanks a ton for the wonderful advise! Working through getting it all up and running.

And for the rest of you, watch out! I will be ready for a PBEM gaime soon!

.

I have played several in the past both sides and held my own (probably about 50/50, or so).

Give me a week or so, and I will be ready for one or two PBEMs!

Again, thanks!!

_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)

Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 17

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/28/2012 1:51:19 PM

barkman44

Posts: 344
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline

Does'nt off map movement ie ec to ct not use fuel?Also ec to ct is safe from attack,just something I read here.

(in reply to KPAX)

Post #: 18

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/28/2012 2:02:45 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

Does'nt off map movement ie ec to ct not use fuel?Also ec to ct is safe from attack,just something I read here.

It doesnt use fuel (ships are supposed to replenish en route, namely from the bases in the Caribbean, Brazil, etc etc). It doesnt take damage either, and this is harder to explain... It is totally safe and this, as I had said, it's totally ahistorical: the wolfpacks are awaiting in the Atlantic Ocean

Er, it's sort of gamey on my book.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to barkman44)

Post #: 19

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/28/2012 2:15:13 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

KPAK,

Here is my now ended PBEM in which I list how I assign my transport early in the war. Look at page 1. Some players may differ, but this will get you started.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3078485

_____________________________

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 20

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/28/2012 5:21:03 PM

KPAX

Posts: 735
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline

ny59Giants,

Wow, dude, that was outstanding!!

I copied and pasted that into a doc and will save it for future use.

Thanks a ton for the wonderful job on the post!!

_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)

Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 21

RE: Damn, that is a LOT of shipS! - 5/28/2012 6:00:19 PM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

ny59giants -

Very informative AAR; an excellent set up reference that helps to complete the picture.

I have pasted your ship capabilities / task listings onto my reference spreadsheets; this is the kind of detailed kind of information that i really like.

Thank You for the link!

Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 5/28/2012 6:33:03 PM >

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 22