Allied Supply to the Western Map

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

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

User avatar
wadail
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:33 pm

Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by wadail »

Australia is a giant V12 gas guzzler that seems to be all but impossible to keep properly supplied, especially with fuel. Efforts to ferry troops to Port Moresby and beyond stall because the Southwest Pacific transports sit in port with no fuel. South Pacific and Southwest Pacific are constantly at odds for transports and fuel (yes, I know this is historical, but my armchair admiral aim is to perform better than historical ;p).

Are there any supply tips for the allies for the Commonwealth areas? Thus far here are some ideas I've had on my own:

1) Secure a source of oil and dedicate some tankers to hauling it to the refinery in Melbourne.

2) Keep a large number of cargo ships and some tankers (this is eased later in the war when AKs have some fuel storage in addition to cargo) to haul the contents of supply convoys from South Africa to Australia and Ceylon. Resist the temptation to dump too many cargo ships in Columbo and keep enough ships stationed in South Africa, Aden, etc to move those supplies out. Also, be sure to dump supplies at Indian ports near Burma to help with overland supply (and be cautious about telling a base to hoarde supplies as it can interfere with the overland flow).

3) Use an AK ferry convoy system with the CS: Fuel and CS: Supply to move LARGE amounts of supply from the US west coast and Commonwealth supply points to "depots" (I HATE that COLUMBO, as an automatic convoy source must itself be supplied) and then use AKLs to augment the Automatic convoy system. For example, use Automatic Convoys from Columbo to supply SE Asia, but turn it off for the Australian West Map bases and run large convoys from Cape Town to Perth, then smaller CS: convoys to distribute from Perth to other Australian ports as needed. A note: Be sure to build and staff the port to avoid spoilage. Also, there are not enough tankers to do this for fuel. 1-2 ports need to be beefed up enough that there is no spoilage and then used as refueling stations. I like to set up computer controlled, Reaction 6, ASW TFs and station them all along a coastline, so I guess the overland and automatic convoy system will have to see to their needs, which should be minimal. Be sure to put fuel at the destination if the convoy cannot make it out and back on its fuel load and tell it to refuel only enough to make it back to port. If it can make it all the way out, be sure to tell it not to refuel at all in the war area to avoid using up precious fuel that is needed by warships and transports.

The worst enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan. - Karl von Clausewitz
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by mjk428 »

The latest patch added the option to turn off production for the Allies. Turn off heavy industry in the larger cities and you won't have the problem any longer. You also now have the option to stockpile fuel (& supply) in your bases.

Before the patch I just let OZ run dry and stockedpiled fuel in Hobart, Aukland & Vava'u.
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by jmalter »

1) once DEI falls, there's really no source for Oil. although USA has no excess oil production, you'll amass 1 million fuel in San Francisco fairly quickly. when you reach that target, turn off the USA/Canada refineries for 9 days, the oil will pool in Los Angeles, after 9 days you'll amass a quarter-million oil there. this must be tankered to Sydney, but will keep Oz Refineries working for 3 years or so.

2) i use Cape Town as a supply-hub, but there's a danger of running it dry of fuel. on-map convoys arriving at CT should be set to do not refuel, and supply convoys departing CT should be set for minimum refuel, they'll only take on what they need to make the round-trip to their destination (+10%). even w/ this fuel rationing, i'm running 2/3rds of my xAK convoys from East Coast > CT w/ half-loads of fuel.
rms1pa
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:32 am

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by rms1pa »

2) i use Cape Town as a supply-hub, but there's a danger of running it dry of fuel. on-map convoys arriving at CT should be set to do not refuel, and supply convoys departing CT should be set for minimum refuel, they'll only take on what they need to make the round-trip to their destination (+10%). even w/ this fuel rationing, i'm running 2/3rds of my xAK convoys from East Coast > CT w/ half-loads of fuel.

unless a TK or AO appears at an off map port i do not load fuel any where but Abadan or Los Angeles. i only run short of fuel at Aden generaly.

rms/pa
there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by Dan Nichols »

In order to keep Capetown supplied with fuel, I send xAKs on CS missions from CT to one of the major ports in India and set it to return fuel. I usually move 150,000 supply per month to India and 75,000 fuel back to CT.
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by jmalter »

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols
In order to keep Capetown supplied with fuel, I send xAKs on CS missions from CT to one of the major ports in India and set it to return fuel. I usually move 150,000 supply per month to India and 75,000 fuel back to CT.
that's a nice scheme, Dan - i'm gonna try it out. Currently i've got Ceylon awash w/ fuel from CS TKs on the short-haul Abadan > Karachi & Madras > Trincomalee routes, it's fairly easy to keep these paths clean of sub activity.

but the long haul (TKs Colombo > Perth) has been problematic, they haveta take a big elbow to the west to avoid enemy air from Sumatra, & several convoys have been thoroughly monstered by roving miniKB action SE of Diego Garcia.
hbrsvl
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:29 am

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by hbrsvl »

mjk428- Just to make sure, what is the latest patch # you refer to?

Thanks, Hugh Browne
hbrsvl
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by witpqs »

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Being aware of the need for maybe 70,000 fuel per month in Australia for industry is the biggest part of solving the problem. Lots of options for that presented in this thread already, and of course making certain that Cape Town has enough fuel to keep troop and supply ships moving from there.
User avatar
Justus2
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:56 pm

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by Justus2 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.
Just when I get the hang of a game, I buy two more... :)
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Justus2

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.
Personal opinion: In a PBM it would be unfair unless your opponent had agreed to it. YMMV.
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: hbrsvl

mjk428- Just to make sure, what is the latest patch # you refer to?

Thanks, Hugh Browne

Official release: 1.0.6.1108r9 Jan 21 2012

Turning off production is a feature added by michaelm during the beta process in 2011 and the feature remains in the latest official release above. I know some folks think it's gamey to turn it off, and they may be right, but if I ship fuel to Brisbane from the West Coast for fleet use the civvies can't just steal it. Without being gamey one can achieve much the same effect by just stockpiling fuel in a base without heavy industry (or shutting it off in just one base like the aforementioned Brisbane. Base stockpiling is another wonderful feature added by the wonderful michaelm. :)
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Yeah because Japanese PBEM players don't alter their production at all.
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: Justus2


Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.

There's no reason to believe that OZ sucking up all the fuel for phantom production was intentionally added to AE as a problem to overcome (this didn't happen in the original WitP). If it was intentional then letting OZ run dry should have severe negative consequences. It doesn't. So the obvious solution before the patch was just to just put the fuel in other places like Hobart & Aukland. Also, if this was meant to be why was the ability added to turn off production for the Allies? It's purely a convenience and doesn't give the Allies any unfair advantages IMO. Others obviously disagree.
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by Sardaukar »

It's not too difficult to keep Oz supplied with fuel. Can run TK convoys from both Cape Town to Perth and LA to Sydney. Just have to keep an eye not to dry Cape Town.

Just that if KB gets to those big fuel convoys....

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2867
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by Mundy »

Unless you lose your USN CVs early and have an opponent obsessed with distributing KB everywhere for anti-commerce missions. [:(]

Oz is burning cow dung for cooking meals right now.

Ed-
Image
User avatar
aphrochine
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by aphrochine »

I've not had many issues keeping Australia supplied with fuel. I do not bother with Oil, just fuel.

Without going into too great of detail, just put together a series of large convoys. From the west coast, you need 3-4 large 100K capacity fuel convoys as a minimum. If you bring in more from CT, you can suffer fewer convoys from the West Coast.

Also, I'd recommend you not use Australian bases as major transport hubs if possible. That's what large islands are for, where you dont have to worry about industry siphoning fuel away from your fleet operations if you stockpile fuel at Pago or other appropriately safe island.
VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by Sardaukar »

Remember that you can also transport fuel with xAKs, just that they don't load fully. Allies have shortage of tankers/oilers until 1943, but plenty of xAKs.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Justus2

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The bit about turning off industry in Australia is the worst suggestion when playing PBM against a human. Against the AI, do what you like. Against a human it's one of the constraints that you should be saddled with overcoming.

Are you saying this from a play balance point of view, or is there some other detriment to shutting off the industry? Just want to make sure I understand. Haven't seen it mentioned in HRs for AARs, but is this an unwritten rule most abide by? Still learning against AI myself, but I don't want to pick up any bad habits that will make it harder to transition to PBEM.
Personal opinion: In a PBM it would be unfair unless your opponent had agreed to it. YMMV.


it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19692
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.

OK - now I am confused about the role of HI in Australia. Isn't Aussie HI needed to produce Aussie reinforcements (new and replacement devices, aircraft, vehicles)? Does a surplus of HI elsewhere on the map somehow find its way to Oz and keep their war industry going?? Just walking away from the fuel/HI/production issues in Oz seems a bit too simplistic for a PacWar simulator. Surely there is some consequence to not supplying fuel to Oz? [&:]
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Allied Supply to the Western Map

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: castor troy

it would only be unfair if the Japanese would have to supply their non military economy, which they don't have to. HI isn't needed as the Allied so feeding the HI in Australia can only be seen as non military. Neither can the Allied change any replacement rates while the Japanese can literally do whatever they want. Economy wise there is so much in favour of the Japanese already that speaking of being "unfair" when turning off Australia's HI seems a bit too much to me.

OK - now I am confused about the role of HI in Australia. Isn't Aussie HI needed to produce Aussie reinforcements (new and replacement devices, aircraft, vehicles)? Does a surplus of HI elsewhere on the map somehow find its way to Oz and keep their war industry going?? Just walking away from the fuel/HI/production issues in Oz seems a bit too simplistic for a PacWar simulator. Surely there is some consequence to not supplying fuel to Oz? [&:]


nope, you do not need Allied HI for anything, all replacements are fixed and come regardless of HI. All your HI does in Australia is using up precious fuel to produce some HI points (which you don't need) and supply which you should be swimming in anyway. Someone mentioned you "only" need 70,000 fuel for your Aussie HI per month. Now if we go with roughly 300,000 tanker capacity in 42 that should be available on the West Coast (without any losses) and it takes a convoy 1 month to get from LA to Sydney if you use somewhat safe shipping lanes, then Australia's HI drains 50% of the USN tanker capacity non stop.

Why? Because a 150,000 ton tanker convoy needs roughly two months to do the trip from the West Coast and back (plus loading/unloading/repairs/upgrades). I got no real life numbers but I seriously doubt that 50% of the US tankers were used to supply Australia's economy with fuel.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”