Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: setloz
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) Page: <<   < prev  54 55 [56] 57 58   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 12:01:39 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7216
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

If you build your entire fleet, and have them at CRUISE speed, they potentially can use 83,970 fuel/day, at mission speed that is 251,908 fuel/day.

What do all these numbers mean?

The IJ fleet needs to be disbanded in port as close to 95% of the time as you can possibly do so to conserve fuel.



Oh, dear. There are certainly some things here that new players on the Japanese side should learn RIGHT AWAY. They should be put in bold along any document talking about the economy.

1. I have always known that more fuel was consumed by mission speed as opposed to cruise speed. I didn't know it was 3x as much!! That is crucial. I've often used mission for important CS fuel convoys traveling great distances because I thought the extra fuel spent would be more efficient than getting the ships spotted and sunk tooling along at cruise speed. I have some work to do. Luckily I've already decided to severely limit the number of ships built, and I'm just now about to turn off a lot of merchant production.

2. Something is always happening with the fleet. In the beginning this was extreme, and because of some early successes I was eager to try to push farther. Looking back at my inexperience I realize now that this is BAD for the Empire if you plan to keep it going into 45, which I still hope to do.

3. The shortest route should always be taken. I spent a lot of time and fuel bringing resources from places like Nauru, simply because it was there and as a new player I though Japan should always maximize it's use of resources/fuel/oil/HI. Now that's not looking so good. There is just enough in China/Manchuria/Hokkaido to keep things going with the occasional convoy returning from the DEI hauling stuff back to maximize it's use. This was one of the justifications for the Nauru convoys a well, that from Truk other returning convoys could haul resources, but collectively it still adds a lot to fuel use over a year or more.

4. The expansion of HI should be carefully considered. Also, maybe for the late game in Japan A LOT of LI should be expanded before mid-42, so that HI and refineries will be supplemented by the time they start to be targeted and/or get low on fuel. I mostly expanded HI in the DEI, but did a bit in China as well. This is holding on for now with enough fuel fro local sources, but just barely. Some of this seems to move to Manchuria as well, because the refineries there are only sporadically working, but the HI is churning along. I just checked and I have 7711 in global HI production factories now. So I assume that's a lot for scenario 1 in terms of fuel use.

< Message edited by obvert -- 1/16/2013 4:48:31 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1651
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 4:10:54 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2908
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
This is starting to become depressing.


< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 1/16/2013 4:12:03 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1652
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 5:14:32 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 932
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
Is it always 3X ? or just when they change speed because of a threat

I was under the impression that "mission speed" = "cruise" unless need for full speed due to tactical reasons

EDIT: Nauru is an interesting problem, in game terms, it is just useless "far away resources". In real life, these were valuable "phosphate minerals" that were useful for Japan's war effort. I think I will keep the convoy running, but I am playing against a less demanding AI opponent

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 1/16/2013 5:52:54 PM >

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 1653
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 6:12:18 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18241
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Is it always 3X ? or just when they change speed because of a threat

I was under the impression that "mission speed" = "cruise" unless need for full speed due to tactical reasons

EDIT: Nauru is an interesting problem, in game terms, it is just useless "far away resources". In real life, these were valuable "phosphate minerals" that were useful for Japan's war effort. I think I will keep the convoy running, but I am playing against a less demanding AI opponent


I think Jorge is correct. Settings of "Mission speed" will, in reality be under cruise speed in reality most of the time, except where tactical reasons merit a change. This is different than 'full speed' settings that are on full speed for all phased movements.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1654
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 6:38:23 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 932
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Is it always 3X ? or just when they change speed because of a threat

I was under the impression that "mission speed" = "cruise" unless need for full speed due to tactical reasons

EDIT: Nauru is an interesting problem, in game terms, it is just useless "far away resources". In real life, these were valuable "phosphate minerals" that were useful for Japan's war effort. I think I will keep the convoy running, but I am playing against a less demanding AI opponent


I think Jorge is correct. Settings of "Mission speed" will, in reality be under cruise speed in reality most of the time, except where tactical reasons merit a change. This is different than 'full speed' settings that are on full speed for all phased movements.


And my comment was for "convoy" TFs: transport, cargo tanker, etc,
not for TF with specific rules like fast transport/ surface combar, minelayers

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1655
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 7:21:47 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7216
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Okay, good. That was closer to my understanding of it as well. I nearly had a panic attack! So is it or is it not a good idea in terms of efficiency, when taking account of sub activity, to use mission speed for valuable fuel convoys?

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 1656
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 8:05:16 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18241
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Okay, good. That was closer to my understanding of it as well. I nearly had a panic attack! So is it or is it not a good idea in terms of efficiency, when taking account of sub activity, to use mission speed for valuable fuel convoys?

I do. Whether that's the most efficient, I'd doubt. Still there's something to be said for peace of mind on the matter.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1657
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 10:14:06 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 932
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Okay, good. That was closer to my understanding of it as well. I nearly had a panic attack! So is it or is it not a good idea in terms of efficiency, when taking account of sub activity, to use mission speed for valuable fuel convoys?


Thinking about it... would it make too much a difference for cargo ships?

let me explain: a CV will go from 15KTS in cruise to 30KTS full speed and that should have a huge impact;
but a cargo ship will go from 12KTS to 14KTS or from 15K to 18K... would that be enough to get out of trouble? it probably have some impact, but to what extent I am not sure

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 1/16/2013 10:16:02 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1658
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 10:39:40 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 14035
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

4. The expansion of HI should be carefully considered. Also, maybe for the late game in Japan A LOT of LI should be expanded before mid-42, so that HI and refineries will be supplemented by the time they start to be targeted and/or get low on fuel. I mostly expanded HI in the DEI, but did a bit in China as well. This is holding on for now with enough fuel fro local sources, but just barely. Some of this seems to move to Manchuria as well, because the refineries there are only sporadically working, but the HI is churning along. I just checked and I have 7711 in global HI production factories now. So I assume that's a lot for scenario 1 in terms of fuel use.


I don't recommend expanding LI at all. It costs 1000 supply per point of LI expanded. It'll take 1000 days just to break even!

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1659
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 11:15:27 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7216
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

4. The expansion of HI should be carefully considered. Also, maybe for the late game in Japan A LOT of LI should be expanded before mid-42, so that HI and refineries will be supplemented by the time they start to be targeted and/or get low on fuel. I mostly expanded HI in the DEI, but did a bit in China as well. This is holding on for now with enough fuel fro local sources, but just barely. Some of this seems to move to Manchuria as well, because the refineries there are only sporadically working, but the HI is churning along. I just checked and I have 7711 in global HI production factories now. So I assume that's a lot for scenario 1 in terms of fuel use.


I don't recommend expanding LI at all. It costs 1000 supply per point of LI expanded. It'll take 1000 days just to break even!


I'm simply thinking this could be a good idea for the very late game. You may take a risk in the meantime, using that supply and perhaps not getting that far, but if you do invest early and get past about march 45, then you start getting the benefit. At a time when your other supply sources are being less productive you will still have plenty of resources to feed the LI.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1660
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/16/2013 11:21:01 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2908
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

4. The expansion of HI should be carefully considered. Also, maybe for the late game in Japan A LOT of LI should be expanded before mid-42, so that HI and refineries will be supplemented by the time they start to be targeted and/or get low on fuel. I mostly expanded HI in the DEI, but did a bit in China as well. This is holding on for now with enough fuel fro local sources, but just barely. Some of this seems to move to Manchuria as well, because the refineries there are only sporadically working, but the HI is churning along. I just checked and I have 7711 in global HI production factories now. So I assume that's a lot for scenario 1 in terms of fuel use.


I don't recommend expanding LI at all. It costs 1000 supply per point of LI expanded. It'll take 1000 days just to break even!


I'm simply thinking this could be a good idea for the very late game. You may take a risk in the meantime, using that supply and perhaps not getting that far, but if you do invest early and get past about march 45, then you start getting the benefit. At a time when your other supply sources are being less productive you will still have plenty of resources to feed the LI.


You get the SqzMyLemon thumbs up. I'm attempting the same in my game for the same reasons. Nothing crazy, but if you pay off the 1000 supply any surplus is gravy and it requires no fuel other than that used to bring in the resources. Will it pay off, not sure, but if it does it will shake up the accepted practice of never expanding LI. It's my Japanese RRSP or 401K plan!

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1661
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:31:03 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5908
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

4. The expansion of HI should be carefully considered. Also, maybe for the late game in Japan A LOT of LI should be expanded before mid-42, so that HI and refineries will be supplemented by the time they start to be targeted and/or get low on fuel. I mostly expanded HI in the DEI, but did a bit in China as well. This is holding on for now with enough fuel fro local sources, but just barely. Some of this seems to move to Manchuria as well, because the refineries there are only sporadically working, but the HI is churning along. I just checked and I have 7711 in global HI production factories now. So I assume that's a lot for scenario 1 in terms of fuel use.


I don't recommend expanding LI at all. It costs 1000 supply per point of LI expanded. It'll take 1000 days just to break even!

+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1662
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:34:12 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5908
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Ship Movement

My understanding is that mission speed consists of cruise during night phase and full speed during day phase as its basis.  This can be influenced by both mission type (bombardment can cause full speed during both phases) and reaction.  This should be consistent with what you experience when you plot specific routes for TF's.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1663
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:40:19 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5908
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

This is starting to become depressing.


Quite the contrary.

It is very much the reality of the IJ empire during the war. When you read the histories and they state that a campaign was abandoned due to lack of fuel ... they meant it. That the Yamato sailed her last mission with only enough fuel for one way, and that was poor quality fuel is the reality. I recall reading one time that there was a dept whose sole function was to track oil/fuel for the empire.

This is why the MikeS school of IJ economics doesn't have these huge expansions, 400 Tojo/month build plans, +1000 R&D factory builds, etc. etc. etc. Mike will expand a few factories a few points, then "bide a wee". Then expand a few others. Everything is slow and small. Why? Because you need to conserve your fuel for your navy while you have it. Once your navy has been converted to fish hotels, then you only need fuel for you HI.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 1664
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:50:00 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5908
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Second Order Analysis

Having broached the first order analysis here (and that was only the starting point.  MikeS has written reams more on the first order), let us move onto the second order.  Oil (and fuel) are not only obtainable in the DEI and China.  Meaning, you can evaluate conquests beyond the historical boundaries.

Example:  I will very often put in place from day 1 an intent to take Calcutta.  Why?  Two reasons.  First, taking Calcutta usually nets me +200,000 fuel (usually a mix of fuel and oil) which is a nice easter egg.  However, by taking Calcutta I can now repair the Burma oil centers (300) and get that much more fuel in the empire.  300 oil/day => 2700 fuel/day is difference maker in the IJ economy.  Particularly if you can hold Calcutta into mid '43.  Yes, there is a lot of jeopardy in taking this and trying to hold.  If the allies land behind you, ... But 15 months of 2700 fuel/day ....

So, if you can conquer areas beyond the historical limits, then that would suggest that your economy and navy should be able to perform beyond the historical limits.  Conversely, if you stay largely within the historical conquest limits, you need to understand that trying to do more than what was historically done (the IJ did really pretty well with what they had) may very well blow up in your face.

None of this is rocket science ... yet. 

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1665
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 5:56:48 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2235
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Ship Movement

My understanding is that mission speed consists of cruise during night phase and full speed during day phase as its basis.  This can be influenced by both mission type (bombardment can cause full speed during both phases) and reaction.  This should be consistent with what you experience when you plot specific routes for TF's.


If i understand concept of TF missions speed correctly TF will alway try to move at cruise speed but when needed he is allowed to move at full.
Standard SAG TF on mission speed is moving 9/4 hex per phase. So if nothing go wrong he will move 4 hex at nigh and 4 at day. The same TF on Bombardment mission will move like one sentence earlier but one day before bombardment will stop 9 hex from target and at night he will automatically switch to full arrive to target at nigh and on morning he will again on full run from target. I think also reaction against enemy TF or attempt to escape from enemy is always on full

As for fuel usage on Full it depend of ships. I read somewhere that BB can use 4x and Yamato`s even 5x cruise speed fuel. Cruisers and carriers using 3x, smaller ships have 3x or 2,5x fuel usage.
I am not sure for that, but i think something is in manual about that. I will search when back home

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1666
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 10:43:06 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 14035
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Lots of very interesting discussion! With the scary stats Pax has given on fuel availability for the fleet, I think I'm going to try something new. I'm going to move fuel, oil and resources to Singapore and try to get it to migrate to Fusan where I can do the hop to Japan. I'm nervous about trying that because it may not move very well. Gotta think about it at work today....

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1667
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 11:54:03 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5908
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Ship Movement

My understanding is that mission speed consists of cruise during night phase and full speed during day phase as its basis.  This can be influenced by both mission type (bombardment can cause full speed during both phases) and reaction.  This should be consistent with what you experience when you plot specific routes for TF's.


If i understand concept of TF missions speed correctly TF will alway try to move at cruise speed but when needed he is allowed to move at full.
Standard SAG TF on mission speed is moving 9/4 hex per phase. So if nothing go wrong he will move 4 hex at nigh and 4 at day. The same TF on Bombardment mission will move like one sentence earlier but one day before bombardment will stop 9 hex from target and at night he will automatically switch to full arrive to target at nigh and on morning he will again on full run from target. I think also reaction against enemy TF or attempt to escape from enemy is always on full

As for fuel usage on Full it depend of ships. I read somewhere that BB can use 4x and Yamato`s even 5x cruise speed fuel. Cruisers and carriers using 3x, smaller ships have 3x or 2,5x fuel usage.
I am not sure for that, but i think something is in manual about that. I will search when back home

Koniu,

Hopefully you will find something. I got my numbers from comments made long time back by I beleive one of the devs. I only have notes now, not the original comment. Maybe a dev will drop in and clarify or maybe Alfred will?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1668
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:05:38 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5908
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Lots of very interesting discussion! With the scary stats Pax has given on fuel availability for the fleet, I think I'm going to try something new. I'm going to move fuel, oil and resources to Singapore and try to get it to migrate to Fusan where I can do the hop to Japan. I'm nervous about trying that because it may not move very well. Gotta think about it at work today....

Mike,

Starting this late to try and pull to Fusan will be a very low probability outcome. The way the resource flow model works ... well it has a lot of residence built into it. Meaning, once it is going one way, it doesn't like to change. My suggestion: Look at Port Arthur and Shanghai. See where your resources (oil, fuel, resources) are now pooling. It should be pretty clear where the excess is going: one or the other. That's the one you will want to choose to pull to. As short as Fusan? No, but still a lot shorter than coming from Shanghai.

To pull from Fusan, you have to start on Dec 7. Really. Since Fusan can only get to lvl 8 port and doesn't have the factories (resource etc) that the other ports do, it is an uphill battle against the model. But, it can be done.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1669
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:10:22 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3612
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Mike we managed to do this however it was quite inefficient. Generally Fuel went OK, oil was a little more problematic going Bankkok to Saigon. In the end convoys from Palembang dropped off in Vietnam, a relatively direct route that then meant it flowed through China much better, although still not great. Part of this was we had plenty of tankers, plenty of fuel at Palembang, but the friction of loading was the choke point. So having the ships at sea longer actually eased the choke point.

In the end used smaller tankers (2850, 7950) to take to Singapore, Vietnam, Manila and Davao then used a larger TF to move it from there.

In hindsight we used more fuel than we should have in some of our raids, and should have repaired the oil centres at Miri.

I'm a bit caught on the whole LI thing... at our stage we have huge numbers of resources, especially in China, however we have done pretty good there. Repairing the LI (we did the HI) when we captured it would be starting to pay off now, the extra supply would be nice...

No sense in making more LI in Japan though. Ten you have to ship the resources there.

We did make more HI in Singapore and Sorebaya which has paid off well.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Lots of very interesting discussion! With the scary stats Pax has given on fuel availability for the fleet, I think I'm going to try something new. I'm going to move fuel, oil and resources to Singapore and try to get it to migrate to Fusan where I can do the hop to Japan. I'm nervous about trying that because it may not move very well. Gotta think about it at work today....



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1670
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:14:13 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3612
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
We started a bit late on Fusan, but resources have been no problem. Even oil and fuel is ok, just a bit random and uncontrolled (which then can ruin the plan and lead to shortages just when you don't want them!). Having a lot of convoys set to Fusan probably helps (we have 6-8).

We have also used the resource convoys to back load supply from Japan to Fusan, that has flowed through China, Vietnam and to Thailand well.

Chees
Rob


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Lots of very interesting discussion! With the scary stats Pax has given on fuel availability for the fleet, I think I'm going to try something new. I'm going to move fuel, oil and resources to Singapore and try to get it to migrate to Fusan where I can do the hop to Japan. I'm nervous about trying that because it may not move very well. Gotta think about it at work today....

Mike,

Starting this late to try and pull to Fusan will be a very low probability outcome. The way the resource flow model works ... well it has a lot of residence built into it. Meaning, once it is going one way, it doesn't like to change. My suggestion: Look at Port Arthur and Shanghai. See where your resources (oil, fuel, resources) are now pooling. It should be pretty clear where the excess is going: one or the other. That's the one you will want to choose to pull to. As short as Fusan? No, but still a lot shorter than coming from Shanghai.

To pull from Fusan, you have to start on Dec 7. Really. Since Fusan can only get to lvl 8 port and doesn't have the factories (resource etc) that the other ports do, it is an uphill battle against the model. But, it can be done.



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1671
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 12:21:08 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5908
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

We started a bit late on Fusan, but resources have been no problem. Even oil and fuel is ok, just a bit random and uncontrolled (which then can ruin the plan and lead to shortages just when you don't want them!). Having a lot of convoys set to Fusan probably helps (we have 6-8).

We have also used the resource convoys to back load supply from Japan to Fusan, that has flowed through China, Vietnam and to Thailand well.

Chees
Rob


Rob,

Great news! Maybe the odds aren't as bad as I would have thought. Persistence and patience are a must in any case.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 1672
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 6:56:14 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 3032
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

4. The expansion of HI should be carefully considered. Also, maybe for the late game in Japan A LOT of LI should be expanded before mid-42, so that HI and refineries will be supplemented by the time they start to be targeted and/or get low on fuel. I mostly expanded HI in the DEI, but did a bit in China as well. This is holding on for now with enough fuel fro local sources, but just barely. Some of this seems to move to Manchuria as well, because the refineries there are only sporadically working, but the HI is churning along. I just checked and I have 7711 in global HI production factories now. So I assume that's a lot for scenario 1 in terms of fuel use.


I don't recommend expanding LI at all. It costs 1000 supply per point of LI expanded. It'll take 1000 days just to break even!


Plus the 100 it costs to expand it into "damaged" status, correct? So 1100 days!

PS - been lurking here forever, it's great stuff. You proceed much faster against a human than I do against the AI, and that's pretty impressive to me. I clearly have a long ways to go.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1673
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 7:21:33 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18241
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I don't recommend expanding LI at all. It costs 1000 supply per point of LI expanded. It'll take 1000 days just to break even!


Plus the 100 it costs to expand it into "damaged" status, correct? So 1100 days!


I don't think these break even figures are correct.

The LI factories will begin to produce some LI after 1 factory has been repaired, no? Sure, at 1(99), it's only producing one / month, but it's not nothing. Then at 30(70), it's producing 1/day throughout the balance of repair. So it won't take 1000 days, but something less than that. My factorial / cumulative production math is failing me now (too lazy to make the requisite calculations), but I believe this number to be lower than 1000 days when this production is taken into account.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 1674
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 7:54:16 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 3032
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that first point of LI expansion cost:

100 Supply for the expansion (and 500 supply to expand by 5, etc.)
Some Manpower
Some HI

And then 1000 Supply to repair it so that it produces, correct? So it will take the better part of 3 years before you break even on an LI expansion.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1675
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 8:12:21 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2908
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

No sense in making more LI in Japan though. Ten you have to ship the resources there.


Now that is something I thought about but didn't think important! It's already a major undertaking to get enough resources daily to Japan without increasing the amount needed even more. Makes total sense to expand LI in China with the glut of resources there and ship that supply to Japan instead.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 1676
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 8:16:56 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3612
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
G'Day Pax, I think it is far better to get it going earlier as you suggest!

At times we have only the bare minimum of resources (70k) while the other big ports may have several hundred k (likewise fuel, but on a different scale) but by the time the TF's have loaded it stays about the same, so it is pulling just enough, but not enough to create a single big dump.

While there is more than sufficient fuel in China (around 100 days worth) we frequently have HI fail to produce for a day or two as the fuel "slops around" internally, and tends to collect at the big ports, but not a great collection at Fusan.

Cheers
Rob


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

We started a bit late on Fusan, but resources have been no problem. Even oil and fuel is ok, just a bit random and uncontrolled (which then can ruin the plan and lead to shortages just when you don't want them!). Having a lot of convoys set to Fusan probably helps (we have 6-8).

We have also used the resource convoys to back load supply from Japan to Fusan, that has flowed through China, Vietnam and to Thailand well.

Chees
Rob


Rob,

Great news! Maybe the odds aren't as bad as I would have thought. Persistence and patience are a must in any case.



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1677
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 8:43:16 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2908
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I don't think these break even figures are correct.

The LI factories will begin to produce some LI after 1 factory has been repaired, no? Sure, at 1(99), it's only producing one / month, but it's not nothing. Then at 30(70), it's producing 1/day throughout the balance of repair. So it won't take 1000 days, but something less than that. My factorial / cumulative production math is failing me now (too lazy to make the requisite calculations), but I believe this number to be lower than 1000 days when this production is taken into account.


Wait, CB that's assuming you are expanding the LI factory more than just once. In your example, you'd actually be spending 100 x 1100 supply for a total of 110,000 supply. Then I think cumulative production would factor in as you suggest. In any other case, if you expanded a factory by a single point expending 1100 supply, I think it still means one point recovered per day for 3.01 years. Ugh.

Sorry, I had a brain fart in my previous post that jrcar has convienently pointed out.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 1/17/2013 9:25:42 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1678
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 9:06:15 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3612
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
From Tracker:

each day 1 LI production point uses 15 resources to make 1 supply. Even if you have lots more resources available only 15 are used per 1 production point per day.

repairing 1 LI production requires 1000 supply.



Therefore 1000 days (and 15,000 resources) are required before the cost/benefit point is reached.

More than one LI production point can be repaired in a day.

HI produces 2 supply ponints per day (in addition to the 2 HI points) so return is 500 days. Even then the limitation eventually will be fuel, there simply isn't enough on the map, so building more doesn't make a lot of sense unless you expect to hold the location for a while and there is lots of fuel in the area (so Malaya, Java, China, maybe Thailand).



quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I don't think these break even figures are correct.

The LI factories will begin to produce some LI after 1 factory has been repaired, no? Sure, at 1(99), it's only producing one / month, but it's not nothing. Then at 30(70), it's producing 1/day throughout the balance of repair. So it won't take 1000 days, but something less than that. My factorial / cumulative production math is failing me now (too lazy to make the requisite calculations), but I believe this number to be lower than 1000 days when this production is taken into account.


I agree, something is not right with the idea that you are only paying back that 1100 supply with 1 supply/day. It's not taking into account the increase in cumulative production. I should have paid more attention to statistics in High School. Maybe Damian or someone with the requisite skills could provide the formula.





< Message edited by jrcar -- 1/17/2013 9:07:33 PM >


_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 1679
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2013 9:56:58 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18241
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I don't think these break even figures are correct.

The LI factories will begin to produce some LI after 1 factory has been repaired, no? Sure, at 1(99), it's only producing one / month, but it's not nothing. Then at 30(70), it's producing 1/day throughout the balance of repair. So it won't take 1000 days, but something less than that. My factorial / cumulative production math is failing me now (too lazy to make the requisite calculations), but I believe this number to be lower than 1000 days when this production is taken into account.


Wait, CB that's assuming you are expanding the LI factory more than just once. In your example, you'd actually be spending 100 x 1100 supply for a total of 110,000 supply. Then I think cumulative production would factor in as you suggest. In any other case, if you expanded a factory by a single point expending 1100 supply, I think it still means one point recovered per day for 3.01 years. Ugh.

Sorry, I had a brain fart in my previous post that jrcar has convienently pointed out.


Yes-you (and jrcar-thanks, dude) are right. Slightly MORE than 3 years for complete repair and back to even. Ditto on the 'Ugh'.

_____________________________


(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 1680
Page:   <<   < prev  54 55 [56] 57 58   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) Page: <<   < prev  54 55 [56] 57 58   next >   >>
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

0.142