IF it is Spring 42, and you are the Allies, you are out of fuel!

[JohnDillworth]

I guess I am suffering the same problem is many others have. I am the allies vs. the AI, It is late Spring 42, I have had a few offensive operations, and I am out of fuel in Australia. Lost a bunch of tankers, didn't get enough fuel out of DEI. I have been shipping from Capetown to Perth, and Los Angeles , to Pago-Pago, to Suava, to Noumea, to Sydney, to Brisbane. Had 3 carriers pinned in the Coral Sea with low aircraft and could not close the deal due to lack of fuel. I just don't have enough long range tankers. Have fuel at Pearl, and have taken to shipping it via AK to Pago-Pago. Any other strategies? Seems to evaporate as quick as I get it. I guess since I am low on fuel and carrier aircraft it looks like months of refilling the pipeline. What to do?

[Sardaukar]

Very historical. Nimitz was screaming "Tankers, tankers, tankers! until 1944.

In start of the war, one admiral said that "oilers were almost as rare as carriers and few tankers in service were so busy ferrying fuel to Pear Harbor that they could not even train for the task of refuelling warships at sea."

Quite grim picture.

[Flying Tiger]

if the aussies could figure out a way to ship fuel overland from perth it would sure help! What is that train line for? Kangaroo skins? Ship some fuel you lazy @#*&^%!!

[JohnDillworth]

Yup,  rushed combat troops and aircraft into the area.  Then base forces, built up my ports.  finally figured out subs and convoys and now I am on rationing.  Going to have to reorganize and really get the LA, Pago-Pago, Suava, Noumea route straitened out.  Pull what tankers I have and stick them on regular, escorted runs.  Those shorth range AO's will be usefull here.  Sunk a CV, a CVL and a BB without out ship losses, but lost a lot of aircraft.  MAybe that will slow the AI down until I can rebuild.  Tried not to just roll with the punches but it didn't work out

[ny59giants]

From WITP to AE there is now 4 vs 2 options on the TF screen for refueling - Full Refuel, Do Not Refuel, Minimal Refuel, and Tactical Refuel (pg 107 in manual). When you form a transport TF in the USA to go to Pago Pago (for example), set it to either Do Not Refuel or Minimal Refuel. If you leave it to the default setting of Full Refuel, it will do so at Pago Pago. The Do Not Refuel means it will not take on any fuel at Pago Pago and Minimal Refuel means it will refuel just enough to get back to the USA plus 10% at current speed.

A new reality for all Allied players is to protect those TKs from day one. No more allowing them to get close to the front line or transit the shipping lanes without or with minimal escorts. [:-]

[LST Express]

I'm at the start of Feb 42 and most of my time has been spent hauling fuel and supplies, not fighting the Japs.

[Sardaukar]

I have found tankers as prime assets and saving everyone from DEI too, if I can. Temptation to shuttle fuel from Palembang/Batavia/Soerabaja to Perth has been the demise of few, though.

[JohnDillworth]

From WITP to AE there is now 4 vs 2 options on the TF screen for refueling - Full Refuel, Do Not Refuel, Minimal Refuel, and Tactical Refuel (pg 107 in manual). When you form a transport TF in the USA to go to Pago Pago (for example), set it to either Do Not Refuel or Minimal Refuel. If you leave it to the default setting of Full Refuel, it will do so at Pago Pago. The Do Not Refuel means it will not take on any fuel at Pago Pago and Minimal Refuel means it will refuel just enough to get back to the USA plus 10% at current speed.

A new reality for all Allied players is to protect those TKs from day one. No more allowing them to get close to the front line or transit the shipping lanes without or with minimal escorts.

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, great tips. Goes a long way to explaining my "evaporation"

[John Lansford]

I've got large tankers running from the WC to Pearl Harbor and PagoPago, and others from Abadan and Cape Town to Ceylon and Perth.  Getting fuel to the East Coast of Australia is the hard part; fuel moves from Pago Pago and Suva to Noumea but I either have problems finding enough ships to get it to Australia or there just isn't enough to send there anyway.
 
I've also got continuous AK/TK TF's running from Balikpapan and Surabaya while I've still got them, carrying nothing but fuel down to Darwin and Townsville.  The Horn Island base is invaluable in protecting those convoys heading around NE Australia...

[John Lansford]

Oh, also, a word of warning; the AI likes to make raiding TF's of a pair of CL's and some DD's and send them into the area bordered by the Marshalls, Palmyra, Pearl Harbor and PagoPago.  Unless you've got a CA or two with a TF, they'll chew up a couple of DD's or anything smaller and sink your ships. 
 
That may explain the AI's extreme interest in Baker and Canton, too; if you have those two bases you can spot enemy TF's fairly quickly, without them they can wander around without being spotted until they find a convoy to ravage.

[drw61]

At the start I sent all the tankers and as many cargo ships as I could spare with fuel to Sydney. I then started to send them to Noumea and PagoPago after they returned to LA. It helped a little but I'm still short of fuel in Australia.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
I've also got continuous AK/TK TF's running from Balikpapan and Surabaya while I've still got them, carrying nothing but fuel down to Darwin and Townsville. 

Against the AI you can probably get away with more than one tanker run from these bases, but against a human opponent you're going to lose your tankers. So I'd recommend getting into the habit of only filling your tankers from safer ports like Palembang, Batavia or Soerabaja once as they leave the area, and then not bringing them back.

Use the short legged AKs for shuttling fuel to Darwin and the longer ranged AKs for fuel runs to Perth from the SRA bases. Allied tankers are probably more valuable than allied CVs in 1942, so don't develop bad habits against the AI that will then cost you when you play PBEM.

I'm actually leaning towards shifting my strategy to not even filling them up once before leaving the DEI area, it's just too costly to lose them. Better to be safe and just get the heck out of dodge as fast as possible so you have them around during 1942 when tankers are so rare.

Jim

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
I've also got continuous AK/TK TF's running from Balikpapan and Surabaya while I've still got them, carrying nothing but fuel down to Darwin and Townsville. 

Against the AI you can probably get away with more than one tanker run from these bases, but against a human opponent you're going to lose your tankers. So I'd recommend getting into the habit of only filling your tankers from safer ports like Palembang, Batavia or Soerabaja once as they leave the area, and then not bringing them back.

Use the short legged AKs for shuttling fuel to Darwin and the longer ranged AKs for fuel runs to Perth from the SRA bases. Allied tankers are probably more valuable than allied CVs in 1942, so don't develop bad habits against the AI that will then cost you when you play PBEM.

I'm actually leaning towards shifting my strategy to not even filling them up once before leaving the DEI area, it's just too costly to lose them. Better to be safe and just get the heck out of dodge as fast as possible so you have them around during 1942 when tankers are so rare.

Jim

Good advice. Allies are not really short of fuel, it's just in wrong places.

Having TF of 6 large Tankers intercepted by IJN CV TF when shuttling fuel from Abadan to Perth was not fun either, so better try to keep eye on what even AI is doing.

[Zacktar]

Like that old saying goes, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics! [;)]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Having TF of 6 large Tankers intercepted by IJN CV TF when shuttling fuel from Abadan to Perth was not fun either, so better try to keep eye on what even AI is doing.

Personally I think they've made a mistake by limiting the allied tankers so drastically. The net effect is they've hard coded a critical weakness into the game that is very easy to exploit.

Keep all your tankers afloat and moving during 1942, and you'll have just enough fuel in the South and Southwest Pacific regions to resist any Japanese moves. Lose 10 or 20 tankers however, and the allies are doomed.

It is simply impossible to move enough fuel to those regions of the map in enough quantity should you take some significant hits in the tanker fleet. So you won't have the fuel on hand to effectively operate your fleets with, and that gives Japan a free hand to take whatever it wants. And you can forget any counter-offensive in 1943, since you won't have any stockpiles built up.

This is the problem you run into when you try and limit allied production/reinforcements with draconian limits like these. Without the flexibility to respond to non-historical loss numbers, it's a simple matter to break any part of the allied production/reinforcement schedule by focusing Japanese efforts to damage a specific target.

As Japan, I'll be looking to sink as many allied tankers as possible during 1942, screw the allied Carriers they aren't nearly as important as the tankers are now.

There needs to be some way for the allies to respond to difficult situations that develop in game. The ridiculously low replacement pools and under-represented tanker and AK fleets are just too damned restrictive if they suffer high losses. In reality it would have been easy to order more tankers, airframes, tanks, guns, etc. produced if they were needed. But because they weren't needed historically, the allies don't get the capacity to build them that they historically had and easily could have used if needed.

Jim

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Having TF of 6 large Tankers intercepted by IJN CV TF when shuttling fuel from Abadan to Perth was not fun either, so better try to keep eye on what even AI is doing.

Personally I think they've made a mistake by limiting the allied tankers so drastically. The net effect is they've hard coded a critical weakness into the game that is very easy to exploit.

Keep all your tankers afloat and moving during 1942, and you'll have just enough fuel in the South and Southwest Pacific regions to resist any Japanese moves. Lose 10 or 20 tankers however, and the allies are doomed.

It is simply impossible to move enough fuel to those regions of the map in enough quantity should you take some significant hits in the tanker fleet. So you won't have the fuel on hand to effectively operate your fleets with, and that gives Japan a free hand to take whatever it wants. And you can forget any counter-offensive in 1943, since you won't have any stockpiles built up.

This is the problem you run into when you try and limit allied production/reinforcements with draconian limits like these. Without the flexibility to respond to non-historical loss numbers, it's a simple matter to break any part of the allied production/reinforcement schedule by focusing Japanese efforts to damage a specific target.

As Japan, I'll be looking to sink as many allied tankers as possible during 1942, screw the allied Carriers they aren't nearly as important as the tankers are now.

There needs to be some way for the allies to respond to difficult situations that develop in game. The ridiculously low replacement pools and under-represented tanker and AK fleets are just too damned restrictive if they suffer high losses. In reality it would have been easy to order more tankers, airframes, tanks, guns, etc. produced if they were needed. But because they weren't needed historically, the allies don't get the capacity to build them that they historically had and easily could have used if needed.

Jim

Well, you can ship fuel with your AKs in a pinch. It just is not as efficient, since they have lower cargo efficiency (modelling the shipping fuel in drums in cargo space). I do it a lot in my Scen 6 (Dec8 start) campaign when lacking tankers.

[John Lansford]

The USN has enough AO's (and there's a couple in Australia too) to refuel a couple of CV or SW TF's, but you've got to protect them like they were made of gold.  I keep mine well back from the shooting (no Andy I'm not telling you where they are) but they allow my TF's to have a larger radius of operation than they normally would if I had to use a base to refuel from.
 
They can also carry fuel to bases if you don't need them for operations, but they get my heaviest available protection so those pesky IJN CL/DD TF's can't get them...

[Montbrun]

The logistics system is a game in itself. Very judicious use of fueling and replacements is a must. SEAC can be fueled from Adaban, and supplied from Cape Town. SWPAC can be fueled and supplied from Cape Town and the US. You can send tanker convoys round-trip to Australia from LA with the "Do not Fuel" option on. Also, remember that your xAKs can cross-load fuel. Make sure that you start the game with "No Replacements" on - you can then make sure that only your front line units are receiving replacements.

[Shark7]

That is definately going to put the brakes on a late 43 over-run by the Allies then. Will be nice for a change.

[JohnDillworth]

Ugh, it gets worse.  I am in May 42.  My next reinforcement tanker is 67 days away.  A total of 9, count em, 9 for the rest of the year!  43 appears to be a bonanza, but I am a long way from there.  How efficient are AF's in hauling fuel?  I have no choice now but to trim my lines, halt offensive operations and spend months building fuel stocks.  Oh, and those 3 tankers in the auto convoy pool? I am taking those back