|
Australia loves to burn fuel, doesn't it. Can turning stockpiling on stop my fuel depots from turning into supply?
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Woodchip posted:Australia loves to burn fuel, doesn't it. Can turning stockpiling on stop my fuel depots from turning into supply? I’ve read that the best move is use one of Noumea/Auckland/Suva as your main fuel hub, since mainland Australia/Sydney will convert it into supplies that you don’t need. I’m just starting out a campaign and would be curious to know how you got your logistics convoys started. I’ve read that generally what you want to do for fuel/supplies is route your convoys through a South Pacific base like Pago Pago for a quick refueling stop before unloading at wherever you’re keeping your fuel. But at the start of the campaign, there obviously isn’t enough fuel at Pago Pago to do this. Is the idea to send tankers to, like, Noumea, offload fuel, refuel from what you just dropped off to get back to LA, and meanwhile have local routes set up to start building up the fuel supply at Pago Pago? This game seems amazing but very overwhelming at the start. I used the sample turn 1 orders spreadsheet that that dude made on the Matrix forums but moving beyond that into the first week of the war is a steep learning curve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Lanchow and the city past it are worth 700 points to me combined. I'm not sure I'll push much past them. Quite the haul of points for how far away it is. If you are stopping there, do you plan on move southwest and fighting the Chinese Communists. Yenan has to be worth a lot of points considering that it was their main base during the war. I've probably asked for you to invade them at least five times since this thread started, it seems to be my Carthage must be destroyed thing 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Woodchip posted:Australia loves to burn fuel, doesn't it. Can turning stockpiling on stop my fuel depots from turning into supply? The way I handle it is actually to completely turn off heavy industry production because it eats through your fuel. Australia's light industry (which only burns resources) is plenty to keep everything there running, and the Allies can more than afford the loss of heavy industry points. To do this, select a base with heavy industry (just check Australia's bigger cities), and you should see a bunch of factory-looking icons at the bottom of the screen. Find the one that says "select x heavy industry", and you should see the toggle to turn production off in that window. Even then, I found myself fuel-starved in Australia in my most recent run because some random TF I had sitting in Cape Town derped out and decided to take up all the dock space, making my tanker convoys take weeks rather than days to load.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Re: logistics, i have an few major lines set up Sf/la to Pearl set to CS for fuel and supply Pearl to Pago Pago with a waypoint east of Xmas island Pearl to Xmas island and Xmas island to Pago for short ranged ships East coast to balboa, balboa to Pago Pago to Sydney, but this will change to Noumea Cape Town to Perth Cape Town to Colombo for shorter range ships Colombo to Perth Perth to Sydney for short leggers Abadan and Aden to Bombay Bombay to Colombo and Trincomalee Bombay to Perth with a waypoint west of Sumatra. I’ll have to move it further west after all the DEI fall
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:The way I handle it is actually to completely turn off heavy industry production because it eats through your fuel. Australia's light industry (which only burns resources) is plenty to keep everything there running, and the Allies can more than afford the loss of heavy industry points. To do this, select a base with heavy industry (just check Australia's bigger cities), and you should see a bunch of factory-looking icons at the bottom of the screen. Find the one that says "select x heavy industry", and you should see the toggle to turn production off in that window. Good call. I hit the Industry button on top and lo and behold, all the Aus HI was red. I shut them down and I can finally stockpile fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
   Troops are heading to help tip the balance at Milne bay, but they come under Banshee attack.  The damaged ship is an easy target for the afternoon attack.   We beat on another minor force.   I'm calling off the forces heading to Milne bay, I don't think they will be enough to make any difference and I don't want to throw any more ships away needlessly.  My first ship loss of the month.   Another day starts over Rabaul. Our plane numbers are already dropping.  And today they bring fighter support.  Again, wave after wave comes in.   We fend off another carrier attack.  Another day of crippling operational losses. Grey Hunter fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jan 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
So I looked it up and AVD is apparently a seaplane tender? Is the AI just sending out random task forces of random ships now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
No 13th
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Is it time to invite the Russians in to farm points from their mountain of corpses? :-p
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
14 January 1944 USS Albacore torpedoes the Japanese destroyer Sazanami in the Carolines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:So I looked it up and AVD is apparently a seaplane tender? Is the AI just sending out random task forces of random ships now? AVD are converted 4-piper (Clemson and Wickes class) destroyers that have no torpedoes and can carry a bit of supply for Catalinas. You can park them in islands which don't have airfields or port facilities, which makes them useful for expanding your search perimeter. However, they're arguably much more useful as ASW escorts in the early war, since they have depth charge racks and free up your actual destroyers for combat task forces. Plus, you get a ton of Barnegat class seaplane tenders which carry more supply and can therefore operate seaplanes for a much longer time before needing to be resupplied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
  Oh look, I still have subs!  Munda seems to be today's target.  The do have a go at Rabaul though.  I hope you crash on the way home.  Another Liberator is brought down.  Oh hey, a lot of them did crash on the way home!  A nice kill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
That's a.. Lot of downed Strategic Bombers!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
I know the US is an industrial powerhouse, but are good showings like today making a dent in the US 4 engine bomber supply? When Grey was the Allies he had problems with keeping them in supply, but he was also trying to strategic bomb the Main Islands from China so his supply chain was wonky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:I know the US is an industrial powerhouse, but are good showings like today making a dent in the US 4 engine bomber supply? The B-17E Fortress begins being built in Jan-1942, and ends production in Jun-1942. The Allies receive 15 of them every month, for an approximate total of 90 of these planes. The B-24D1 Liberator begins being built in Feb-1943, and ends production in Aug-1943. The Allies receive 33 of them every month, for an approximate total of 231 of these planes. The B-24J Liberator begins being built in Sep-1943, and doesn't stop production until the game ends. The Allies receive 38 of them every month. That's not counting fiat arrivals/injections of whole squadrons, other models of the same basic airframe (B-17F, B-17G, B-24M, etc), and other four-engine bombers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:I know the US is an industrial powerhouse, but are good showings like today making a dent in the US 4 engine bomber supply? Yes and no. Once the B-29 squadrons start arriving later in the summer, these losses will be a drop in the bucket. However, you get fairly few strategic bomber squadrons before summer 1944 that don't need to be withdrawn or have unrestricted HQ. Thus it should allow Rabaul to breathe a little easier. Grey's problem with the bombers was twofold- Trying to get the Shanghai express supplied and maintained in China is difficult, since there's a major lack of LCUs with aviation support in that theater and the only supply that can effectively get through is from Burma, since even with the Chinese ports captured you'd have to run through areas with Japanese land based bombers. Grey did eventually set up bomber bases in the Marianas, but there he was also operating the B-29s at medium altitude daylight raids, which massively increased the attrition they took from fighters and flak. I'm not sure if he ever deliberately stood down the bombers- that's sometimes a better option when you have inadequate aviation support than letting 1 or 2 bombers go it alone. Strat bombing requires a lot of micromanagement to make it effective, much like carrier operations. The difference is that unlike carrier ops, you need to deal with strat bombing practically every day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:I know the US is an industrial powerhouse, but are good showings like today making a dent in the US 4 engine bomber supply? Fun fact: At peak production, the Ford Willow Run Bomber Plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan was capable of producing one B-24 Liberator every 63 minutes. During a single three-day span in April 1944, the plant produced one hundred completed bombers, and over the course of the war produced or produced production kits for a total of 8,765 bombers. Willow Run was one of five plants that produced Liberators during the war. In short:  noEdit:  imagine two assembly lines of liberators stretching out, forever Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Jan 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 07:04
|
|
|
Triggerhappypilot posted:Strat bombing requires a lot of micromanagement to make it effective, much like carrier operations. The difference is that unlike carrier ops, you need to deal with strat bombing practically every day. Also carrier ops are way more exciting because you gotta hold onto your butt when you run that turn every time
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Ford Willow Run Bomber Plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan over the course of the war produced or produced production kits for a total of 8,765 bombers. Compare this to the total bomber production of the Japanese armed forces from 1935 onwards of about 10,000. Meaning in all likely hood that over it's operating period, one plant handily outproduced all Japanese bomber production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 08:35
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
The fun part is after Germany falls, the 8th Air Force gets relocated to the West Coast in preparation for being shipped to the Pacific FEBA, and the US starts getting 136 B-17G's a month on top of all the 8th AF's whole squadrons and on top of all their other crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
Grey What happened to the 13th?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 11:56
|
|
|
 happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
  I think the Allies are trying to colonise Woodlark island.  Now, THATS what I'm talking about.  This is very much NOT what I'm talking about.  Boom!  One of our subs takes a hit. I've just had to ship a load home for repairs as it is.  The air war continues to run hot.  The contents were worth more than the packaging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Fun fact: At peak production, the Ford Willow Run Bomber Plant in Ypsilanti, Michigan was capable of producing one B-24 Liberator every 63 minutes. During a single three-day span in April 1944, the plant produced one hundred completed bombers, and over the course of the war produced or produced production kits for a total of 8,765 bombers. Oof.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
In other words, the Allies can just deplete Grey of fighter planes simply by doing endless bomber missions by '45?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Essentially, yes. e - Especially as by that point they'll have crippled their access to fuel and be rampantly demolishing heavy industry (along with everything else). goatface fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jan 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Danann posted:In other words, the Allies can just deplete Grey of fighter planes simply by doing endless bomber missions by '45? In other words, the Allies will always win the war, on land, sea, and air. quote:Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the Truth... There is no spoon... Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself" Do not try to win the war. That's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Has anyone ever described a way that the Japanese could have won? I just can’t even conceive of one. And I don’t mean with space alien tech but just a realistic even if highly improbable scenario. It just seems, every time this comes up, I can’t ever understand how they even thought to go to war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Has anyone ever described a way that the Japanese could have won? I just can’t even conceive of one. And I don’t mean with space alien tech but just a realistic even if highly improbable scenario. It just seems, every time this comes up, I can’t ever understand how they even thought to go to war. It depends on how far you want to stretch reality; how much foresight do you give them, or what would you change in order to increase their fighting capabilities, etc. Basically they fall under the same scenario as Germany. They probably could have won if you change their industrial capacity or allow women to join the workforce, but it'll never be one change either. Off the top of my head, first you could change would be the result of carrier battles/losses. More Japanese carriers afloat = more power projection. Using their submarines for commerce raiding rather than a supplement to fleet actions, or simply building Germany-levels of subs may have changed some things what with the vast distances of the Pacific. Outfit ground forces with better small arms wouldve certainly helped, or having a better pilot training program. The list goes on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
If you changed Japanese logistics capability and gave them a unified command structure, I think they would've lost in 1946 instead. Add more stuff like the above post mentions and maybe 1947 but I don't see a win anywhere. You just can't beat a nation that can outproduce the entire world on its own. The US had loving ice cream machines on their ships!
3 DONG HORSE fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Has anyone ever described a way that the Japanese could have won? I just can’t even conceive of one. And I don’t mean with space alien tech but just a realistic even if highly improbable scenario. It just seems, every time this comes up, I can’t ever understand how they even thought to go to war. The Japanese had some misconceptions about American politics and culture in that they believed that inflicting a devastating enough blow on American military power could force them to the negotiating table. The fervor induced by Pearl Harbor meant that this was not going to happen. There was maybe an opportunity to drive up "war fatigue" via mass casualties in 1944/1945, but in the event, the Manhattan Project was too far along and too successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 06:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There was maybe an opportunity to drive up "war fatigue" via mass casualties in 1944/1945, but in the event, the Manhattan Project was too far along and too successful. I have always wondered how the US would've reacted if Taffy 3 did not manage to scare off the Japanese force. It would've resulted in ridiculous casualties unheard of in American history. Well, maybe not as bad as the Civil War but that's kind of cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Danann posted:In other words, the Allies can just deplete Grey of fighter planes simply by doing endless bomber missions by '45? It worked against the Luftwaffe. 3 DONG HORSE posted:I have always wondered how the US would've reacted if Taffy 3 did not manage to scare off the Japanese force. It would've resulted in ridiculous casualties unheard of in American history. Well, maybe not as bad as the Civil War but that's kind of cheating. We were already pissed off, that would have made it worse. It would probably have made the occupation harsher. The real blow from losing an invasion force is the highly specialized training and equipment that went into it. That's at least a years worth of production and training to get back to the same place for force structure, but without a lot of the experience. Okinawa was bad enough without losing 2 years worth of experience in the logistics and landing arms. mllaneza fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
Are individual planes ever retired due to material fatigue or something? Between those production numbers and the fairly limited losses we're seeing it seems like the US is gonna be absolutely drowning in planes a couple months from now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
Planes can be damaged, which means they'll then need to be repaired. Planes can also be destroyed completely. Both being damaged and being destroyed can happen simply as a part of normal operations, as influenced by a number of factors such as the experience of the pilot, the distance of the flight, the weather during the flight, and so on and so forth. These are called 'Ops losses'. What Grey usually does is that he damages a bomber without outright killing it in the air, and then the bomber gets 'destroyed' during the return trip or on landing as a result of the damage that it incurred.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Has anyone ever described a way that the Japanese could have won? I just can’t even conceive of one. And I don’t mean with space alien tech but just a realistic even if highly improbable scenario. It just seems, every time this comes up, I can’t ever understand how they even thought to go to war. I've recommended it before, but I'll again recommend Eri Hotta's "Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy", which traces the Japanese military and political thinking that led to Pearl Harbor,. As far as I can tell, though, a Japanese victory is Japan not going to war with the US and working out some sort of negotiated settlement with China that lets them claim victory and leave, if that's even possible by 1941. Really, Japan's best hope for victory is, right after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, to ask for an apology from China, get it, and end the war. Once they get past that point, and Chinese sentiment hardens, then it's all over, because Japan probably can't win against China by itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
IF Japan had issued a formal declaration of War instead of attacking Pearl, and IF they had better treatment of Allied POWs, then... Maybe they could've gotten some kind of negotiated settlement, possibly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Planes can be damaged, which means they'll then need to be repaired. Does someone know how it worked irl outside battle damage, ie just wear and tear? Were planes written off after a fixed x missions, or when they became annoying to maintain, or just when something too major (the engine or a spar, presumably) broke?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
I spend a huge amount of my time in this game so far managing whether task forces are docked or not. Even when there is plenty of room at a port, task forces don't always seem to dock when I tell them to go drop stuff off and come back. When the port is overloaded, it becomes a days-long juggling effort. Is there any way to make this less of a pain in the rear end? I figure it might get better with time as I can start organizing my logistics better, making ports less overloaded. It's only 12/24/41 in my game as the Allies, so there's a lot of frantic movement with whatever ships I have on hand in a given area. I assume things will settle down eventually, and ports will be larger by then. But even so, ships not docking when the port isn't overloaded and the task force is set to unload is a mystery to me. Bold Robot fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 15:05
|
|