RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

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: Allied Supply to the Western Map

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 >> The War Room >> RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 1:33:54 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

To echo some of Alfred's points-

In stock AE -

Let's say the Allied player chooses to forego supplying fuel to Australia and thereby essentially shuts down HI production due to a lack of fuel. They will then also be foregoing 2240 supply points being produced per day by that industry - in theater.

So the Allied player establishes his base of operations in Auckland, it will take 27 days for a TF of 8 Pacific L Cargo ships to travel from San Fran to Auckland. The TF should be able to unload its capacity of 31,200 points in one day. So in c.55 days 8 ships deliver 31,200 points to the theater.

However in the 55 days that it took the TF to transit to Auckland and back to San Fran , Australia could have produced 123,200 supply points. So the Allied player would potentially tie up 32 Pacific L Cargo ships to make up the difference. The Pacific L consumes 26 fuel per day...26x32x54 = 44928 fuel consumed. Keep in mind this fuel consumption may or may not come from in theater. In addition, the HI in North Island, NZ will consume 200 points per day or 55x200 = 11,000 fuel in 55 days.

On the other hand Australian Industry consumes 2240 points of fuel per day. Its 177 hexes from San Fran to Sydney. The transit time,one way, for a Shell Type A tanker is 22.125 days. Round trip time is 47 days. In those 47 days Australia will produce 105,280 supply points and consume 105,280 Fuel. It will take 9 Shell Type A tankers to supply that quantity of fuel and the tankers will consume ....9x57x47= 24,111 fuel.

So in the end, after my very rough analysis, the Allied player potentially has to decide whether to tie up 9 tankers or 32 cargo ships...depends on their priorities...and their are certainly other variables to consider.

In my mod, all supply production will be from HI so the Allied player will likely be compelled to feed Australia.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 31

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 3:52:36 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

22 days for West Coast to Australia can only be the case if you take the straight way, which would pretty much mean going right through Japanese territory. Taking a safe path from the West Coast to Sydney takes roughly 35 days, plus unloading/repairs.

Without doing much calculation and only going with the years of PBEM, whenever I had to feed Australia's HI with fuel it has severly influenced my fleet operations. Whenever I decided to use the fuel there for fleet operations while moving in supply (always got ample supply) it was a vast difference to operate my fleet out of Australia. What my previous campaigns showed me was a clear picture.

If it is realistic or not is not the question for me as long as the Japanese player got free reign over their industry so the only remaining question (for me) is: does it make USN life easier when Australia's HI is not sucking up nearly a million of fuel per year? Yes, it makes it far easier, while I still have months when I nearly run dry. This with having 95% of all tankers on the map being more or less occupied to carry fuel to Australia (without suffering any exceptional losses).

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/5/2012 3:58:44 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 32

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 5:05:08 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

When I look at the question of sending fuel to Australia (for myself) I am including a large consideration of the 'chrome' on the contest. I levy myself with the burden of keeping the civilian economies running. The more desperate things are, the more the civilian economy/populace will tolerate. In China, I do not turn off production, but I do turn off repairs. That one is almost a moot point as there wouldn't be enough supply in China to conduct repairs anyway. In other places, I would shut down repairs in the midst of a defense, but not due merely to strategic bombing unless the supply situation were desperate to the point off affecting the defense (but not if it affects offensive plans). For me that's just part of enriching the experience. YMMV.

I find that by mid-42 Australia can be stockpiled with several months worth of fuel, even while sending fuel elsewhere, upgrading the tanker fleet, and using safer tanker routes. Of course that is not to say that the Empire is unable to succeed in disrupting those operations depending upon what they are willing to do.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 33

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 6:41:42 PM

Thayne

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

I agree. i can imagine telling the Australians, "We are shuttung down your industry to save fuel for the allied war effort."

Nope. The industry keeps running. Australia gets its fuel.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 34

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 7:46:22 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There are consequences of doing so.

1. Auckland (and the rest of New Zealand too) does have Heavy Industry. The difference is that unlike Australia, there is no local fuel production. If the Allied player can manage their NZ fuel stocks, they should be able to do so equally with Australia.

2. The "dry" bases are usually further away from the combat zone. Players are therefore going to consume additional fuel just in transiting the extra distance.

3. The extra transit distance provides (a) more opportunity for enemy subs to interdict the vessels, and (b) creates more wear and tear on Allied ships.

4. Besides potential spoilage from the smaller "dry" ports, refueling and rearming operations are inhibited in time. In some instances the bigger ships will have to expend additional fuel to then travel to a port where they can be rearmed.

5. Depending on the location of the specific "dry" port, there will be reduced Allied flexibility in sourcing fuel imports. Besides the effect on Allied logistics, it also can make it easier for the enemy to raid the SLOCs.

As always, there are costs associated with any particular course of action. Too often players here seem to think themselves smarter than the real life commanders. Players are no where subjected to the same extent of the real world pressures which the historical commanders were but the players are provided with just enough for them to understand that the real historical commanders had sound reasons for the way they conducted the war.

Alfred

1. NZ industry is miniscule compared to OZ and much more easily managed.

2. The IJN is further south & west in most games, even against the AI, compared to the actual war. So the distance to the combat zones are about the same.

3. See #2. Also, subs abound near OZ ports.

4. The "smaller" ports aren't that small. Hobart can be built up quickly with just the engineers in Tasmania so there is no spoilage. Aukland can quickly grow to a level 9 port.

5. Harder to raid Aukland and Hobart than it is Brisbane & Noumea. But after all it is a war.

Why does OZ need so much refined fuel when they have plenty of coal for their heavy industry? Still can't find any historic evidence that the US Navy was bringing large amounts of fuel to OZ for civilian use. That burden would have more likely fallen on Britain in any case.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 35

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 8:17:50 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

. That burden would have more likely fallen on Britain in any case.

Probably not. Considering that the US was shipping fuel to the British Isles as well. Considering the reserves in the US and South America, oil from the US makes much more sense. But in game I was sending it from Cape Town to Darwin and from the US. So I don't know.

I imagine the opening of the Suez Canal changed things as well.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 36

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 8:19:14 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

In my mod, all supply production will be from HI so the Allied player will likely be compelled to feed Australia.

I like this idea. Makes it more realistic. Of course you will have to fix everything else for me as well. I will work you up a complete list over the next week or so...

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 37

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/5/2012 9:43:32 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

In my mod, all supply production will be from HI so the Allied player will likely be compelled to feed Australia.

I like this idea. Makes it more realistic. Of course you will have to fix everything else for me as well. I will work you up a complete list over the next week or so...

I'd be more than happy to take a look at your list...my big stumbling block is making this thing AI compatible.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 38

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map - 9/7/2012 4:38:25 AM

artuitus_slith

Posts: 141
Joined: 11/22/2009
Status: offline

I use the following setup to get fuel to Aussie.

1)Large (100k sup/100k fuel) convoys, usually 2-3 or more active at any one time from the West Coast to Sydney.

2) smaller (50-80k fuel) convoys from CT to Perth. usually 1-2 per week.

3) Large (100k/100k) convoys from East Coast to Perth- usually one each week.

This allows me to have large fuel stocks in Australia, which are then shipped out to FOB like Luganville, Nomeou (spelling?), and Suva, using smaller convoys. The large convoys go to large ports (Sydney, Perth) so they can unload quickly, and the the smaller convoys can unload quickly at the smaller ports. My Fleet generally stays away from the Aussie coast unless they are in need of local repairs/emergency repairs. By making good use of AKEs you can keep your warships supplies with ammo and your CVTF full of Sorties. It takes a bit of time to set up, but by MAR of 42 I have plenty of supplies/fuel everywhere I need them, and Can operate anywhere from Pearl to the Aussie coast at will, without having to wait for fuel/supply/ammo. Hope this helps-Gmoney

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 39