Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fuel - Looking for conclusion

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Fuel - Looking for conclusion Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fuel - Looking for conclusion - 2/25/2002 11:47:00 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Ok, after all the enlightened discussion about Japanese fuel (it was pretty good actually), if you were going to allow a daily amount of fuel to come into Truk, what would it be? Would it be different at different times, and if so, how (i.e. 1942 2000/per day, 1943 1000 per/day). Keep in mind that the game automatically commits less IJN ships to the area in early 1943 and much less in the second half of 1943 so less fuel is required.
Also, in the hypothetical scenarios where all Japanese carriers are available for action in the South Pacific (and it is assumed a bigger IJN and Japanese army commitment to the South Pacific), what fuel numbers would you use.
Can't promise we will put this in, but if I can get some decent conclusions here there is a decent chance it will get in. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Post #: 1
- 2/26/2002 12:00:00 AM   
ratster

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline 		If you do add this "feature", could you make it an option, i.e. "Historical" or "Unlimited" fuel at Truk.

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 2
- 2/26/2002 5:29:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Whle down at Connections, I spent a couple hours going through the Air Force Histroical Agency Microfilm records of Activity at Truk. In gerneral from a sampling of daily Intel reports there where beteen 3 and 5 AO's at anchor at the two main refueling areas, NW of Dublin Is and SE of Dublin Is. Sie of these vessels were not given but given typical AOs probably between 3000 and 6000 tons capacity. Frequency of these fuel convoys was generally weekly, leading one to assume typical weekly offload to storage was on the order of 10 - 30,000 tons per week. The facility report lists estimated total storage (above and below ground) at 60,000 tons, though later they seemed to indictate below ground storage was larger than fist thought (total 80-90,000 tons perhaps). Over 50 barges were typically available, probably of 500-2000 tons each, to ferry fuel form the pipeline piers to the ships at anchor. The above is based on wartime intel reports from 1944, so some considerable error may be present...but given the information, and previous discussions 60-90,000 tons of fuel that could likely be stored there. It would seem unlikely that reseves would be drawn below 33%. So that gives 40-60,000 tons the maximum effort that could be devoted to a single operation and it would likely take a week or 2 of preperation loading the fuel, and take 2-4 weeks for that amount to be replenished. "Maximum effort" operations may be able to improve on that, but that would seem a good estimate of the "generally available" fuel supply rate to Truk. Similarly the failure of a convoy to arive could mean an extra week to recoup the difference. This seems to be in keeping with tempo of operations seen through out the campaign. I also picked up several books free to conferee's including the excellent (though self-congatulatory) "General Keeny Reports" which includes detailed references to air operations and (percieved) results. From this book its a wonder we ever had to send ships into combat with the Japs, given the reported effectiveness (in Gen Kenny's eyes) of land - based air [ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ] [ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 3
- 2/26/2002 5:46:00 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		More great info, now is anyone ready to make a stab at an actual fuel reinforcement rate for the game? Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 4
- 2/26/2002 5:47:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		See my post on the development forum.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 5
- 2/26/2002 6:55:00 AM   
Kadste

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Ottawa, Canda
Status: offline 		Joel, Based on the reports found in these posts and the research available, it appears that the Japanese were capable of "normal" operations for the forces arrayed in the South Pacific, specifically regarding the operations to support their offensives in New Guinea and at Guadalcanal. The number of units that the Japanese sent to this area was less than they could have. Since there were no other major operations going on at this time, let us assume that the primary reason they did not send many more units was due to fuel (there was after all significant demands for fuel for non-combatant units). I know that we could debate this forever, but it may not get us any further unless someone can find definitive records. If we work with this assumption, we can calculate the average weekly fuel consumption for the units that the Japanese sent for routine operations (re-supply, interdiction) including the extra fuel that operations into enemy territory would cause. Then make an allowance for the extra operations the periodically ran. Operations like Santa Crus, Eastern Solomons, Naval battles of Guadalcanal, the Lae reinforcement Convoy (March 1943), etc. Off the top of my head it appeared the Japanese conducted one of these major operations about every month. Average this total over the month, so you have to save up for these operations. Total up the two and see what results! Run with these numbers in numerous games to test their validity. The results should approximate what really happened. This might not work, but I think it is worth a try. If you want me to look into this, you could e-mail me with the Japanese OOB as it appears in UV (historical version). I will run the numbers this week and give you some answers then. The other option would be to make an at start game option that the Japanese receive “x” amount of fuel per week at Truk, also including an unlimited fuel option.

_____________________________

"In difficult ground, press on;
In encircled ground, devise strategems;
In death ground, fight."

Sun Tzu, the Art of War (circa 400 B.C.)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 6
- 2/26/2002 9:22:00 AM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		You have to remember that just because the Japs might have sent a certain amount
of fuel on an average week to Truk, doesn't mean they couldn't have sent more, if
they wanted to. If the battle at Midway had not occurred, for example, and the
Japanese navy had decided to focus more on the area of operations covered in UV,
they no doubt would have allocated much more fuel for the area. If the fuel could have been sent from Japan, then why limit the player needlessly?
Why automatically assume that it won't be sent? Obviously, any player playing
the Japanese side is going to try to improve on what happened there and not
make the same mistakes that really might have happened. Part of that might
be conducting more naval operations in the area and seeing to it that more fuel
gets dedicated to the effort. Of course, it's up to the player to get the fuel from Truk to wherever he wants
it to be. But leave that up to him and his convoys to try to achieve. And the allied
player can try to stop him, if he likes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 7
- 2/26/2002 10:38:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		My recommendation was to abstract the transfer from Japan to Truk (which the player in this case was not realy to influence that strongly - a small increasing random chance for the convoy to be turned back) as a random quantity from 10-30k tons in some distribution. YEs, the Japanese could have sent as much as they cared to, but how much they sent was out of the players hands at this level. Allow 50k tons to be stored at Truk and that amount replaced by the weekly convoy from japan. That would limit the japanese player pace of operations based on the reality of the theaters share.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 8
- 2/26/2002 10:51:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, Suppose we go with the higher figure for Truk storage ashore (90,000 tons) and give Rabaul and Equal amount. This would allow the Japanese player to store 180,000tons plus whatever tanker/oiler he uses. After first saving the max amount he could begin operations from both Truk and Rabaul (fuel the hvy units from Truk and the light ones from Rabaul) The Truk storage would allow
1. 6 2BB 4 CA TFs to go to Guadalcanal and back before fuel was gone (and no other TF to be at sea during this period)
2. 1 CV TF to stay at sea for aprx 24 days (refueling from oilers coming and going to Truk)
3. combinations that do not appear overly lavish Rabaul storage
1. 1 2BB 4 CA TF to go down slot 22 times (could not even keep a TF there every night for the month but would make it highly likely any US TF would encounter one at any given time-also no 'Express' missions could be done unless the ships were also part of these missions-2BB and 4 CA bombard while the escort group of 1 CL and 8-9 DD's offload supplies then whole group returns to Rabaul. This actually appears well within reason. So the real question of course is at what rate will new fuel arrive at Truk (remember the Rabaul stockpile will have to be moved from the Truk stockpile at beginning) If we use 214k tons per month as absolute limit (this is total oil delivered to Japan per month-the souce of supply to Truk) The first value we need is what level of fuel must Japan keep in Japan before IHQ will release any? IJN monthly use is 305k tons (but of course this total will be effected by what the player is actually doing, if he and fleet elements else where are all in high use this total would go up, likewise if he and other fleets are in low use it would decrease)(an amout of monthly fuel use by off map naval units has to be decided to arrive at a true-before game use-number is arrived at.) So the reserve will always be falling unless operations somewhere are reduced to bring fuel consumption below 214k per month. We will also assume that the South Pacific operations have preference over all others. The first method of saving fuel (curtailing other operations) would be to keep the heavy units in port in the home Islands (fuel levels should impact ship availbilty and reinforcment schedule)(if game player achives certain fuel requirments he will have ships sent to Truk)(if Japanese over all fuel reserves fall below a certain level he will have ships withdrawn)
Giving the player 50% of monthy fuel (107k tons) it will take him at least 2 months (approx +- based on starting levels to store max fuel at both Truk and Rabaul and commence serious operations directed at Guadalcanal. If scenario begins in May (before US offensive starts) then his starting fuel allotment per month might be reduced. (events trigger increase) It would be quite pointless from a US point of view to try to engage a Japanese player who begins all stocked up and ready. But back to my point, I don't see fuel being a deciding influnece if the Japanese player manages a fuel commitment of 50%. He won't have unlimited resouces but enough if used wisely to mount his operations after preparing. It will also contribute to the logical progression of events. The US player has the means to target the Rabaul supplies (but they are well protected in unground storage)(still the refueling operations could be effected and any tanker/oiler targeted)
Does any of this make sense? [ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 9
- 2/26/2002 10:18:00 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Mogami - Nice analysis. I think it can be simplified though. Whats wrong with unlimited supply at Truk (as was mentioned before)? I think if the number of TK/AKs are limited (as is historical) you create a bottleneck without having to compute complicated fuel supply rates. Add in the losses the Japanese will incur, and you'll have problems, I guarantee. After all, its not like the IJN/Merchant Marine sent every ship to the Solomons - they were spread around an awful lot...
Are there any plans to restrict US/Allied fuel?

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 10
- 2/26/2002 10:32:00 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, the problem with unlimited supply in Truk is the Japanese will simply operate everything from there. (a never ending train of TF headed down and back) the CV's will always be out to sea (except to refit from minor sys damage from steaming around all the time) It takes 2 days to get from Truk to the Solomons so Japan makes 3 TF 1 always going one always coming and 1 always on station. (burning more fuel the Japan possibly could. So to prevent this you would need to put some other limiting rule in place. Just deciding how much fuel comes into Truk per month solves a whole host of other issues. (and makes the Japanese player actually sit down and come up with a plan for future operations rather then just 'Easter Egg Hunting' with continous TF

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 11
- 2/26/2002 11:10:00 PM   
ratster

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline 		Dividing their forces into thirds wouldn't be such a good idea as it would allow the allies local superiority at virtually anytime. Wait... yeah, let them have unlimited fuel at Truk, so they can do that. Seriuosly though, in the interests of simplicity I still don't see a problem with unlimited fuel at Truk. It won't be practical for the Japanese player to operate from there tactically anyway. Its roughly a 48 hour journey from Truk to Guadalcanal, at full speed(30 knots). Thats got to be hard on the ships and the fuel consumption, can they even maintain that speed for 2 days without running out of fuel? If not, how much fuel would they have left when they got there, enough for the return journey? Thats also assuming that all the ships in any given task force can do 30 knots. What do the playtesters think about this issue? I'm assunming they're running with unlimited fuel now? [ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: ratster ]



_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 12
- 2/26/2002 11:28:00 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		a third at a time is an awefull lot, just how many ships do you believe The IJN could maintain at sea 24/7 before fuel did become an issue (those TF's you are so eager to run into contain 2 BB 4CA if the entire IJN is on map there can be 6 such TF and I don't think any sane US commander would be licking his chops at that prospect) OK to send the 2 super BB down (with 4CA 1CL and 8DD) Of course, Truk is a lot further away from Guadalcanal than Rabaul: 1,400 miles one way. Again, I will tack on an additional 25% (for a total of 1,750 miles) to account for zig-zagging and all that. So, our mission profile will be: cruise at 16 knots for 1,600 miles, followed by a 150-mile run in at 25 knots, followed by the bombardment and the run back out, and then the cruise home. Again, we'll also assume an air attack on the task force, and some high-speed running around in IronBottom as well, for a total of 2 hours worth of high-speed maneuvering. The fuel consumption rates for this mission look like this:
Event Speed Miles Traveled (nm) Hours Traveled Tons of Oil Burned/ Hour Total Tons of Oil Burned
Totals - 3560 214 - 15,535 not quite 10 days meaning Japan could do this three times per month (1 TF 45k tons a fuel)
and to be a real pain I send oilers down and refuel the TF from my unlimited supply and just move out of air range every day and back every night. Now unlimited fuel mind you as Japan. I have my 2 supers hitting every ten days.(or every night whatever you want) and still have 5 TF of 2 BB 4CA each (I refuse to consider that also the CV's will be out guzzling juice) The extra 4 days cost of running from Truk vis Rabaul are meaningless. The reason Rabaul is important IS because it saves fuel to operate from there. If fuel is not a worry Japan only needs Rabaul for air purposes. Now I doubt the Japanese player has control of the entire IJN so the number of TF will be reduce in pratice but the allied player will not notice because just 2 such TF can smash anything if they are always on station and being refueled from an unlimited supply of fuel (and those ever present birdfarms I won't talk about) Now in a game with fuel limits the Japanese player could store up and then begin to do this same thing, but only as long as the fuel lasted. The wise US player could never predict when it would commence but if he simply started subtracting fuel used he would know more or less when it was going to end and plan around that. The Japanese player once commited to his all out effort would have to win while it lasted or go back to the drawing board for another go while the US used the lull to repair/rebuild etc. To me this sounds like what the situation should be. [ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]



_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 13
- 2/26/2002 11:53:00 PM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		Hi Mogami!
You've hit it on the head. A daily bombardment of Henderson Field by 2 BB's , 2-4 CA's a CL and half a dozen DD's, quickly pounds Henderson field down. Battleship bombardments can really burn up a lot of supplies if your on the receiving end. As history shows the bombardment of Oct 13-14 42 was the closest Japan came to shutting Henderson down. Stangely, it took Japan a month before they were capable of repeating it. Mike

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 14
- 2/27/2002 12:06:00 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Mogami - Agreed; hadn't thought of running everything from Truk. I just assumed everyone would run out of Rabaul as was historical...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 15
- 2/27/2002 12:07:00 AM   
Jason629

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Charlotte NC
Status: offline 		Unlimited fuel at Truk seems like madness to me. It opens up all sorts of "avenues of non-historic" strategies. The Japanese player must have fuel in the back of his mind while planning strategic operations. I think this can be done quite easily by controlling or randomizing arrival patterns of fuel at Truk. Another idea might be to make the fuel arriving at Truk correlate to a percentage of the Surface forces deployed in the theater.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 16
- 2/27/2002 12:56:00 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Running from Truk has some real problems in the game. The wear and tear on the ships takes it's toll. The computer doesn't run perfectly at cruise speed all the way down so it does run a little more at full speed. The very short range DD's become impracticle for this mission (probably 25-33% of IJN DD's fall into this category) and even other DD's want to refuel from the BB's during the trip so it further slows things down. Rabaul minimizes wear and tear, and significantly reduces turn around time. That's been my experience so far. Joel

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 17
- 2/27/2002 1:37:00 AM   
Elvis1965

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/2/2001
Status: offline 		Are the playtesters running with unlimited fuel supplies now? Their opinions may be the most useful in the discussion. Personally, I like "ample" fuel at Truk-- but not unlimited. The bottleneck should come in transporting fuel into the Solomons/Rabaul Theater.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 18
- 2/27/2002 6:21:00 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline 		Well, i think we should have a feature-button, that means you can choose the fuel ability in truk (you must transport it to raboul anyway...)
unlimited, historical (whatever that means if the decision is made),Mogami-Mode (sorry, couldn´t resist) Or, if that isn´t practicable, we should allow in the nonhistrical scenarios the unlimited fuel consumption... Why ? Because i want to play a game, not sitting in front of the monitor with a calculator, hoping that the fuel for the inomming ships will be right, and and and... Maybe for the US player it is interesting to limit the jap fuel consumption, but for me as a mostly „jap“ player, (well they lost the campaign and i like to perform better) it would be stupid, maybe even a gamestopper. Also, if i would be Jap Highcommand, i would do some things different as historical (that is the real fun in such games) and what do i with 20 ships not moving because of the lack of fuel ???

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 19
- 2/27/2002 6:25:00 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Jason629:
Unlimited fuel at Truk seems like madness to me. It opens up all sorts of "avenues of non-historic" strategies. The Japanese player must have fuel in the back of his mind while planning strategic operations. I think this can be done quite easily by controlling or randomizing arrival patterns of fuel at Truk. Another idea might be to make the fuel arriving at Truk correlate to a percentage of the Surface forces deployed in the theater.
As i wrote, i want to play ahistorical, otherwise, why should i play the game ???? Also, as the american, i want to play ahistorical, too. So what is the fun of that game if you have no alternative way ?? It sounds for me that you are a "american" player, well, with all the manpower the americans have (esp. later) it is much more interesting to stand against a stronger jap, for me this would be a very interesting scenario and i think, many "jap" players too would think about a US game instead...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 20
- 2/27/2002 6:36:00 PM   
Zakhal()

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 1/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Adnan Meshuggi:
Maybe for the US player it is interesting to limit the jap fuel consumption, but for me as a mostly „jap“ player, (well they lost the campaign and i like to perform better) it would be stupid, maybe even a gamestopper
As for myself i would enjoy to play japs with the extra challenge of fuel-shortage. Especially against AI, which usually is always lacking.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 21
- 2/27/2002 6:44:00 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline 		just my $.02 worth,
Currently in Pacwar- we have an abbreviated system for convoys delivering fuel-supplies-etc. We also have a way to increase these items by specific TF's... are we changing the system??? If I want Rabaul or Truk to be fueled up unhistorically then I should have to create and use my TK's in TF (or by plane). The only question I can see is TK capacity and the port capabilities to handle it. (subject to tank farm capacity, bombing etc.)or the TK as a sitting duck in-port, dispensing fuel and occupying port space... That would make most of this point redundant-ie; 15k ton tanker arriving = 15k fuel to port.

I acknowledge that while it does allow for super bases, it also makes a juicy target for bombing AND once I find out where the ships are fueling - look out, here come de subs! just my thoughts
Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 22
- 2/27/2002 9:04:00 PM   
Supervisor

 

Posts: 5166
Joined: 3/2/2004
Status: offline 		I concur with Joel Billings in his comments above. I've been playing a long campaign as the Japanese and you are not going to be able to operate out of Truk as is feared by some here. The Japanese have a very hard time repairing normal wear and tear to their fleets. Also, before losses to Allied air power, subs and surface, you've got barely enough merchant marine to deploy forces forward from Truk and keep them supplied. In the long campaigns, the dynamics of the situation work heavily against the Japanese. No matter how well you do tactically and operationally, the Allies build and build and build. In the short campaigns fuel supplies at Truck will be the least of Japanese logistical nightmares. I'm not sure the Japanese need any more handicaps.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 23
- 2/27/2002 9:20:00 PM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Jim: I think you already know this, but I am confused by your first paragraph. Anything in PACWAR is totally irrelevant to this game and the WitP game to follow. I think I am now in the Mogami camp. His analysis is excellent. However, I have one caveat. We all acknowledge the excellence of Frank's "Guadalcanal". The book dwells at length on ammunition and food for the Japanese garrison. This occurs over and over in the book. However, only once does he mention fuel as a consideration in anything other than a tactical matter (duration of task forces at sea without tanker refueling) and that could be construed either way. It seems to me that, if fuel was a significant factor, it would have been brought out in this book.
I also don't think a Truk expressway for capital ships would work. Too many excellent opportunities for ambush by submarine and aircraft carriers. Paul

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 24
- 2/27/2002 9:56:00 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Zakhal():
As for myself i would enjoy to play japs with the extra challenge of fuel-shortage. Especially against AI, which usually is always lacking.
True, but i think we should have a choice and i don´t like the idea of calculating my fuel, maybe if the game can make some calculating and show me the aspects, fine... but i think, this is much difficultier to program as a preselection how much fuel you want for your scenario.... I too, want some scenarios with less fuel, because they are harder to play. BUT (big but) i also want scenarios with unlimited or enough fuel (in TRUK)... And reading most posts here it sound for me like the jap shouldn´t move at all (okay i overestimate it )

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 25
- 2/28/2002 12:31:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, I will try not to get nitpicky. We have seen that the 2 BB 4CA TF can run down 3 times per month (45k tons fuel) at 16 knots except for the high speed runs while in air range of Gaudalcanal. If the game engine runs the TF at a higher speed while on transit several side effects will occur. More fuel will be used and more time will be saved. (meaning it could occur more often) Wear and tear on the ships is to be expected. I served 10 years at sea and rarely were every ship board system at 100 percent. (the US Navy works around this problem with redundant systems on board if the main is down go to the secondary) I personally know nothing about Japanese shipboard maintenance. But from looking at the records of movement for the heavy units during WW2 it seems they went to Truk because the IJN had stationed their repair ships there. The repair ships are logically also going to be there during the game since the Japanese player would hardly choose to risk them down at Rabaul, in range of Allied air. Truk remains the logical choice therefore for the heavy units. Truk only has a 2500 ton dry dock so the large ships when they needed time in dry dock have to return to their home base. (all Japanese ships have a home base) Kure being the only one capable of handling the super BB's (where they were built) and only one of them at a time could be in dry dock.
If I was the Japanese commander during the high intensity period, I would only worry about system damage in 2 areas. Main gunnery and propulsion. Every thing can be repaired after the show is over. If the offensive fails there will naturally be a period of inactivity again while the material for the next try stockpiles.
It is a big ocean and the sub/CV threat has several things mitigating in favor of the IJN. The US would not know when it was to start. (I am not speaking of an unlimited fuel scenario but one where the Japanese player has taken the time to stockpile his needs before commencing) Trying to cover all the approaches all the time the US ships would also suffer system damage (perhaps for nothing) subs would have to take station close to the target area (unless there are enough US subs in theater to cordon a vast area they might miss the IJN moving. Since they would have to be in the target area they would have the problem of this is when the IJN are moving at top speed.
I think that in the actual event the IJN planned to operate the heavy units from Truk.
The 4 fast BB (Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna)
can base out of Raubal (they are really Battle Cruisers but I promised not to nitpick) But they also would need to return to Japan for any yard work. Well, actually it appears everything but a few class of DD do. Do the play testers have a steady stream of ships coming and going during the long scenarios or are repair facilities on board handling it?

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 26
- 2/28/2002 1:42:00 AM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline 		This issue of speed of TF's is interesting. Does the player have any control over
how fast a TF moves? There could be many situations on longer voyages where the
player wants the TF to move at best speed, due to time being a factor in the operation.
Other times, the player may want the TF to move at it's most efficient cruising
speed to keep fuel consumption to a minimum, so the TF can extend it's operational
range as far as possible without the need to refuel. Of course, the TF would automatically accelerate to battle speed when any enemy
ships or aircraft were spotted or combat operations begun. But it would be very
useful for the player to be able to specify what speed for the TF to travel at
at during certain legs of the voyage, both on the outbound and return parts of
the trip. Also, it would be important for the player to know what the optimum cruising
speed for each ship type was, so he could make an informed decision about what
speed he wants the TF to sail at.

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 27
- 2/28/2002 10:57:00 AM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline 		Paul,
I agree that this game is not a Pacwar update... but in my mind the game system is certainly relevant because we are graduating to a new game platform on the same subject (Pacific War) by the same producer (G.G.)... UV and WitP are sight unseen by me , so my suggestion was in response to Joel's initial post to the fuel and possible changes to the process with only Pacwar as my experience to guide me here.

Mogami's posts are certainly impressive, factual and knowledgeable. I do not dispute anything about cruising ranges and consumption factors with a seafaring man (VBG), however the "average" wargamer probably will not want to engage in slide rule computation as did the real commanders did in WWII. My choice is for a click of the mouse switch and let the computer handle it!
The problem I see with all of this is the theory here. Using Truk and fuel as an example, ask the Who/What/When/Where/Why questions... If you make a base line using these factors, someone will ALWAYS find something wrong, disputed, or incorrect. Just look at the OOB's/updates for SPWaW! (Ver 7.1 and counting- VBG) Now allow me as a player to alter the historical geography or dynamics of this fuel question, we go right back into the hopeless quest of satisfying everyone (= no one...)
So whats already there as a (old) system may not be broke, need a little tweaking -sure but playablility is the name of the game-hence my suggestion...
Still just my $.02's worth err... maybe a quarter now.
VBG
Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Fuel - Looking for conclusion Page: [1]
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

1.828