Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by n01487477 »

Taken directly from the SCEN FAQ
Guadalcanal FAQ
SCN004

designed by "Nikademus"

This is a port of the original stock Guad-Mod created for stock a year or so ago. It's primary objective is to put the respective commanders in as much of the shoes of the actual players as possible. "Watchtower" as the operation was known to the Allied side was also called "The Shoestring campaign" and for good reason. Unlike typical campaign scenarios, devices, fuel, shipping and supply are not available in abundance allowing the player to do whatever they want when they want it.

Given the objective, the philosophy in game terms comes down to what I call "limited options." Players will be faced with bottlenecks in logistics which will curb usage of assets and force advance planning and conservation of effort. The Allied Player will also have reduced control over ground assets and will need to "buy" units to deploy as they see fit. This represents the cost of doing business vis-a-vis the "chain of command" where competing priorities between rear area and forward bases must be reconciled. This is also a balancing factor since the Allied player starts off with a major advantage in ground troops over the Japan player, and subsequently receives still more greater reinforcements.

Specific modifications for the scenario are as follows:

1) Both sides get a much reduced daily allotment of fuel and supply. Run your ships around too much and your going to have problems. Allow a build-up and you can "surge" and/or operate portions of your fleet more or less continuously.

Floyd and I have been playing this scenario as PBEM. During that time I've done very few operations (I've been saving fuel since early on)... and I mean I've played very conservatively. Some Fast Transport runs, a few for moving supplies and troops from Truk to Rabaul. 2 CV operations; but the majority of the time in Port ...

OCT 15, 1942
According to my Tracker calculations I'm using about 3500 on shipping (not counting most of my naval fleet still in port) and get 2K a day. Also, at present I'm in an offensive posture with Amphibs out of port, but I repeat the gas-guzzling BB/CA's are stuck in port. Additionally, 9 SS's can't leave port because of fuel and all TF's have refuel off (this is how bad it has gotten)...

My fleet is down to 44% bunker and I have 9K fuel (spread sparely) across a few bases. I need 160,000 fuel to fill those bunkers.

I'm hamstrung by ever increasing fuel supply problems; I believe that while Nikademus has tried to make this a more historical "shoestring" scenario; fuel has been cut too drastically for the IJN IMHO. I can't even keep the FT's (Tokyo Express) to Guadal at this rate.

Maybe he would like to have another look at it or not...[8D]

I know you can mod the hell out of this, but as it is an Official Scenario - I wanted to just post something, so others are aware of my experience playing this.
User avatar
WITPPL
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:10 pm

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by WITPPL »

There is plenty of fuel. Trust me.

Heres some advices how to deal with this problem:

Set every single TF You create "Do not Refuell". Always. Ships will refuell automatically at port if you wont. Now You can controll where your preacius fuell goes.
Do not refuell transport ships at all. They have enough fuell to run through out the game.
Do not refuell small PCs etc. Refuell them only if You really need them.
Do not run CAs and BBs except major operations. They are not bicicles.
Forget about yamato.
Run at full speed in emergiencies only.

Above All: You will have plenty of tanked transports - use them to refuell warships. Create an escort TF (ie with tanked AKs and empty CAs) and refuell at sea. Easy. Just check how many AKs will arive as reinforcements. All fully tanked. You do not need those. Use them as tankers to refuell Your fleet :)

Try this and You will be ok.

Most of all: If you play IJN - set every single TF You create with "Do not refuell" option. Always in every scenario.

Thumbs up for IJN!

BTW: You do not need lots of fuel at Rabaul. Use Your oilers and tankers wisely.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by LoBaron »

Damian, Guadalcanal was a scen. I have played against Rob some time ago.

My fleet spent most of the time in port and I only used combat ships CL on larger on temporary restricted ops.
No idea if it was realistic, but it for sure felt like it (or at least was a challenge).

Later in the scen I created escort TFs with AKs to drain their fuel for ships more important.
Image
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by n01487477 »

Witppl -

I've been doing mostly as you have said, but obviously the tempo of my operations have been too high ...

I do disagree with some of what you say - but then again I'm an aggressive player and still feel that doing as you say and what I've been doing (syphoning fuel from Ak's to war ships) is really a stop gap for what hasn't been fully tested.

There also is not enough fuel to run those AK's for the whole campaign and remember there is a 60K limit on troops at Truk.

My aims have obviously been too high but then I don't like to sit around and lose situation. So it is my problem probably more than the scenario...


LoBaron -

Oh, I agree it is a challenge and I like that ... just been running too many fast transports with supplies to bases that I've kept (used to suppress Floyd.) and done too many Tokyo Express to Guadal.

Maybe I'm just too impatient/aggressive for this scenario. Having said that, I still think that circumventing this though "do not refuel" and ship fuel transfers is a little ridiculous. (but then I'm drunk - it's my birthday!)

Cheers
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by LoBaron »

I think the scenario is pretty tough on the Japanese on more than fuel constraints.
You need to win an early CV battle and either get Lunga back fast, or run for PM.
And both ops will use all your fuel you have bunkered.

Pointwise with equal opponent skill a win is pretty much out of reach.

The more you deploy forward, the more you need to ship in, the more fuel you eat up.
Its a loss-loss situation.
Add to this no repair yard, so even slight damage is a ticket to Tokyo and the abysimal
plane replacement rate until the Oscar arrives, brrrr.

I felt it really fun to play the underdog though, and Rob Brennan reported his major
issue was to get the PPs to buy his restricted units out.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: n01487477
LoBaron -

Oh, I agree it is a challenge and I like that ... just been running too many fast transports with supplies to bases that I've kept (used to suppress Floyd.) and done too many Tokyo Express to Guadal.

Maybe I'm just too impatient/aggressive for this scenario. Having said that, I still think that circumventing this though "do not refuel" and ship fuel transfers is a little ridiculous. (but then I'm drunk - it's my birthday!)

Cheers

Happy Birthday!!!! [:D]


For a small scen the point distribution is the issue. I can live with all
the restrictions for the Japanese, but since Lunga and PM in Allied hands means a Japanese
loss, thats a bit on the tough side. In theory the Allied player can just sit there and
wait till scen end.

If Nik wants to change something, he might shift the VP balance point a bit further north...
Just an idea.
Image
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by LoBaron »

Double post.
Image
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I think the scenario is pretty tough on the Japanese on more than fuel constraints.
You need to win an early CV battle and either get Lunga back fast, or run for PM.
And both ops will use all your fuel you have bunkered.

Pointwise with equal opponent skill a win is pretty much out of reach.

The more you deploy forward, the more you need to ship in, the more fuel you eat up.
Its a loss-loss situation.
Add to this no repair yard, so even slight damage is a ticket to Tokyo and the abysimal
plane replacement rate until the Oscar arrives, brrrr.

I felt it really fun to play the underdog though, and Rob Brennan reported his major
issue was to get the PPs to buy his restricted units out.
Definitely agree with everything you've said ...

Sank 3 USN CV's + maybe 1 more. Down 1 CVL sank last turn. Got troops in PM, also trying to take Milne Bay and just landed a large force at Guadal... too far forward, doing too much ... my bad. I just like winning.

Pretty bad self-talk from a guy who thinks logistics are the be all and end all ... we all get blind-sided sometime though with the sniff of victory.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: n01487477
LoBaron -

Oh, I agree it is a challenge and I like that ... just been running too many fast transports with supplies to bases that I've kept (used to suppress Floyd.) and done too many Tokyo Express to Guadal.

Maybe I'm just too impatient/aggressive for this scenario. Having said that, I still think that circumventing this though "do not refuel" and ship fuel transfers is a little ridiculous. (but then I'm drunk - it's my birthday!)

Cheers

Happy Birthday!!!! [:D]


For a small scen the point distribution is the issue. I can live with all
the restrictions for the Japanese, but since Lunga and PM in Allied hands means a Japanese
loss, thats a bit on the tough side. In theory the Allied player can just sit there and
wait till scen end.

If Nik wants to change something, he might shift the VP balance point a bit further north...
Just an idea.
Yeah - I like that idea too ...
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by n01487477 »

Wrap up - bad play on my part and complaining about something that is my fault ... sorry all.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Guadalcanal - fuel issue

Post by LoBaron »

Just out of interest, is there some good literature that adresses the topic of fuel availability
to the Japanese in the Solomons?

Need new reading stuff anyway...
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”