Matrix Games Forums

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question about oil allied side

 
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 >> Question about oil allied side Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 10:13:02 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1777
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline 		I put together 6 tankers of oil for Australia, have them in las angeles where oil storage says 25,000, however after 3 turns none of my tankers seem to be loading at all, I did a run a month ago where 4 were filled half way then it stopped for a few turns. Am I getting oil from the right place or is something wrong?
Post #: 1
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 10:22:35 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3612
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		There may be an issue if the tanker capacity + refinery capacity is > current oil. Is there really that much refinery capacity in Australia? Guess I'll look when I get home.

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 2
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 10:53:33 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online 		I've seen the same thing. For some reason, you can not load oil in LA that would leave it with less than 25,000.

Furthermore, as far as I can find, LA produces 20,000 oil per day and that is the only oil production in North America.

And - according to Tracker LA uses 25,000 oil per day.

Despite these contradictions, I never see production in North America failing. I do see it fail for lack of oil in Australia and Pearl Harbor. (BTW, PH also wants for resources that must be shipped in, and Australia needs to have fuel supplied too.)

I don't know the answer.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 3
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 11:07:18 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1777
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I've seen the same thing. For some reason, you can not load oil in LA that would leave it with less than 25,000.

Furthermore, as far as I can find, LA produces 20,000 oil per day and that is the only oil production in North America.

And - according to Tracker LA uses 25,000 oil per day.

Despite these contradictions, I never see production in North America failing. I do see it fail for lack of oil in Australia and Pearl Harbor. (BTW, PH also wants for resources that must be shipped in, and Australia needs to have fuel supplied too.)

I don't know the answer.


In WITP I remembered you needed to ship a few tankers once a month to Australia/Sydney with oil, and after Java fell I ran out of free oil to steal. Wasn't sure if I needed to supply Sydney with oil or fuel.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 4
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 11:08:51 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline 		If I remember right, Australia has no exess refinerys. You just need to ship fuel for the HI and lots of it if you want to have some for your ships.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 5
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 11:16:03 PM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1527
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		witpqs has it right in that LA only produces what it uses every day & needs to maintain that 25k lvl so you'd only be able to load the overage from 25k. For the Allies there's not much extra oil from anywhere other than DEI & only a trickle from offmap bases so once the DEI are lost not much oil to be found but plenty of fuel comes in from West Coast & offmap areas to feed the industry in Oz

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 6
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 11:38:25 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1777
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

witpqs has it right in that LA only produces what it uses every day & needs to maintain that 25k lvl so you'd only be able to load the overage from 25k. For the Allies there's not much extra oil from anywhere other than DEI & only a trickle from offmap bases so once the DEI are lost not much oil to be found but plenty of fuel comes in from West Coast & offmap areas to feed the industry in Oz


Yeah I just remembered someone saying long ago in WITP OZ needed oil in sydney once a month for 6-8 tankers, glad I don't need to deal with that cause im already short on tankers enough right now.

Curious though is there any reason I need to ship Resources around or no?

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 7
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 11:42:47 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline 		The only resources I move as Allies is the ones on Hilo to PH. An xAKL or two is enough.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 8
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/7/2010 11:52:39 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1777
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only resources I move as Allies is the ones on Hilo to PH. An xAKL or two is enough.


Thanks nomad, cheers!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 9
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/8/2010 12:27:01 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 6171
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only resources I move as Allies is the ones on Hilo to PH. An xAKL or two is enough.


It's coffee after all. War juice.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 10
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/8/2010 2:05:35 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only resources I move as Allies is the ones on Hilo to PH. An xAKL or two is enough.


It's coffee after all. War juice.


Yep, and since PH is a Naval base, the Coffee must flow.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 11
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/8/2010 6:38:04 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 6171
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only resources I move as Allies is the ones on Hilo to PH. An xAKL or two is enough.


It's coffee after all. War juice.


Yep, and since PH is a Naval base, the Coffee must flow.



And, since it's KONA coffee, even the IJN would stand aside and grant it diplomatic immunity to pass.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 12
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/8/2010 7:55:48 PM   
zace

 

Posts: 183
Joined: 3/22/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only resources I move as Allies is the ones on Hilo to PH. An xAKL or two is enough.


It's coffee after all. War juice.


Yep, and since PH is a Naval base, the Coffee must flow.



And, since it's KONA coffee, even the IJN would stand aside and grant it diplomatic immunity to pass.


Why do you think the IJN even built raiders? What do you think they were so obsessed with capturing?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 13
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/8/2010 9:13:20 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 6171
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zace


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only resources I move as Allies is the ones on Hilo to PH. An xAKL or two is enough.


It's coffee after all. War juice.


Yep, and since PH is a Naval base, the Coffee must flow.



And, since it's KONA coffee, even the IJN would stand aside and grant it diplomatic immunity to pass.


Why do you think the IJN even built raiders? What do you think they were so obsessed with capturing?


And here I thought it was the poi.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to zace)
Post #: 14
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 11:13:07 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3263
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Scenario 1 has a nice equilibrium for the Allies regarding oil production and consumption.

1. India has equilibrium between local oil production and consumption, having 2 oil fields and 2 refineries with equal capacity.
2. Canada has equilibrium between local oil production and consumption, having 2 oil fields and 2 refineries with equal capacity.
3. USA has equilibrium between local oil production and consumption, having 2 oil fields and 1 refinery with equal aggregate capacity. NB, the oil refinery at Los Angeles covers its shortfall by importing oil from Bakersfield.
4. Australia has an oil deficit. Sydney has an oil field (it simulates the shale oil production from near Sydney) but it produces insufficient oil to keep the Sydney refinery in full production. There is no surplus oil left to feed the Melbourne refinery. However the two Australian refineries can be kept in full production by importing oil from Abadan.
5. Abadan has a daily auto production of oil which neatly covers the oil deficit in Australia.
6. In the DEI, Sumatra and Java has excess oil production beyond what is locally needed to feed their refineries. As this area is usually a focus for Japan, this surplus is usually not really available for transportation to Australia. However, Boela and Babo have no local refinery to process their local oil production and are often captured by Japan after the big DEI oilfields. Thus these two oilfields could potentially provide oil to feed the Sydney and Melbourne refineries.

Alfred

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 15
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 11:38:17 AM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2638
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		What's the point of shipping oil to Australia just to keep two small refineries operating?  Just send fuel; that way you don't have to go through the conversion process and it can be used immediately by industry and shipping.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 16
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 3:40:31 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1777
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline 		Thanks john that's whats been bothering me lately, I couldn't remember if I needed to ship oil or fuel to Australia, or if it mattered really. 

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 17
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 3:55:31 PM   
Offworlder

 

Posts: 840
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Well the only gain in keeping the refineries active is recieving a few additional supplies I think

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 18
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 4:20:49 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5264
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		There is no reason to ship OIL to Australia from the USA. Just send FUEL. The only instance I can think of to ship OIL at all to Australia would be from the DEI, and that's only because there is excess there, and it's a shorter trip. Even then, I wouldn't sweat it.

As Allies, you don't really need to EVER haul Resources or OIL. There isn't a need. Just focus on Supplies and Fuel.

(in reply to Offworlder)
Post #: 19
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 5:05:44 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 6171
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

As Allies, you don't really need to EVER haul Resources or OIL. There isn't a need. Just focus on Supplies and Fuel.


Keep saying this, over and over. It seems lots of folks still don't believe you.

To quote Madeline Kahn: "It's twu!1 It's twu!!!"

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 20
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 6:14:39 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

There is no reason to ship OIL to Australia from the USA. Just send FUEL. The only instance I can think of to ship OIL at all to Australia would be from the DEI, and that's only because there is excess there, and it's a shorter trip. Even then, I wouldn't sweat it.

As Allies, you don't really need to EVER haul Resources or OIL. There isn't a need. Just focus on Supplies and Fuel.


Chrome, baby, nice shiny chrome.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 21
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/9/2010 6:21:57 PM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 847
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline 		I've tried shipping oil once. That was he first and last time. I loaded up some tankers at Abadan-you'd figure that would be one place swimming in crude. It took forever to load the tankers and when dropped off at Bombay and Calcutta I didn't see any real effect that made it worthwhile.

I agree stick to fuel and supplies.

What exactly do you gain from sending oil to the Hawaiian islands? Fuel and supplies have sufficied for me.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 22
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/10/2010 12:05:38 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3263
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

There is no reason to ship OIL to Australia from the USA. Just send FUEL. The only instance I can think of to ship OIL at all to Australia would be from the DEI, and that's only because there is excess there, and it's a shorter trip. Even then, I wouldn't sweat it.

As Allies, you don't really need to EVER haul Resources or OIL. There isn't a need. Just focus on Supplies and Fuel.


I agree. I only posted to correct the wrong information which had been posted by others viz:

(a) in USA only Los Angeles produced oil
(b) there was no excess refinery capacity in Australia
(c) the locations to export oil to Australia if deemed by the player that it was appropriate to do so (in other words North America is never a suitable location to export oil to Australia)

For Allied industrial production, export/import of oil is not particularly important. However, the denial of stockpiled oil to the Japanese may be a strategic factor to be considered by an Allied player. Whether it should be engaged in is another question as the assets required risk/reward is a significant issue.


Alfred

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 23
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/10/2010 7:13:03 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online 		Alfred,

Thanks for catching my error on this. I don't know how I missed them, but it was driving me nuts. I was beginning to wonder if there was special code to handle North America's production.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 24
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/10/2010 9:24:31 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5264
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


However, the denial of stockpiled oil to the Japanese may be a strategic factor to be considered by an Allied player. Whether it should be engaged in is another question as the assets required risk/reward is a significant issue.


Alfred


Sure, but if you can haul out Oil to deny it to the Japanese, why not just haul out the FUEL? It's of greater use to the Empire, and more use to you in Australia....... Unless you somehow managed to haul out all 300K fuel stockpiled in the DEI and it's completely out, but I doubt you could ever get there!

Better to just stick to the "don't bother" rule of thumb.

I appreciate the chrome aspect....for the Allies it's chrome, for the Japanese it's the lifeblood of the Empire. Hence the difference in the two sides I guess.....

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 25
RE: Question about oil allied side - 4/11/2010 3:51:43 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3263
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Well, there are no refineries on Boela and Babo, so if the Allied player wants to deny the Japanese those industrial inputs from those locations, he does not have the option to remove fuel, only oil. Which of course means that as only TK/AO can be used at those two ports, I made reference to the risk/reward determination.

I am not advocating any particular Allied strategy. There are some circumstances when moving oil to Australia is acceptable, others when it isn't. Yes it is mainly "chrome" to the Allies whereas it is essential to the Japanese and therefore as a rough rule of thumb for lazy Allied players, they should not go wrong if they adopt your advice to just concern themselves with shipping fuel and forgetting about oil. It is just that IMHO, WITP:AE is very much about logistics and the transportation of oil is a logistics issue and therefore a player needs to be fully cognizant of the relevant factors and then make their own operational plans.

One psyhcological advantage to shipping oil to Australia is that the player knows exactly what will happen to the product, whereas if fuel is shipped instead he may receive a shock to find that the fuel stockpile he was relying upon to refuel an important TF/naval operations, has simply disappeared because it was gobbled by Heavy Industry.

Alfred

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Question about oil allied side 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

0.320