Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Yet Another Newb Question

 
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 >> The War Room >> Yet Another Newb Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Yet Another Newb Question - 10/4/2012 4:14:08 AM   
ChadS

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 9/5/2012
Status: offline
Hello!

OK, I just checked, and can't find this in the manual, at least, not by doing key word search for the involved terms.

It's my understanding that "Allow Retirement" basically means when a TF finishes it's mission, it'll go home. Correct?

What if, though, the Destination Hex is a port, and Allow Disband is set? Will the TF "retire" into its current port? Or, do I have to set the Home port to the destination port to get that to happen?

Also, if the TF is a transport, but you don't wish for it to actually carry anything, will it leave port immediately if you do not attempt to load it, or will it wait around? (I think I'm seeing that they eventually leave--it could be they are low on OPS, so they don't go right away, but would if they had the OPS.)

I'm trying to evacuate the Philippines, and I'm not recalling what the proper way to do that would be.

Thank you!

Chad S.
Post #: 1
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/4/2012 5:17:10 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
Allow Disband - the TF returns & disbands at its home-port, not its destination. if desired, set the home-port to its new home, then tag the 'return to' button at lower-left of the TF screen, that'll auto-set the TF destination. in my game, a TF arriving at a small port will not always auto-disband, even though it's set to be the home-port. this might be a bug, or just a lack of ops points, or a carryover from the designed feature that requires you to always dock an unloading TF manually at a small port.

a TransTF will leave w/o a cargo, but will use ops points to refuel before it leaves port. if you're in a hurry, change 'full refuel' to 'minimum refuel'. 'min refuel' gives you enough fuel to go to your destination & return to your home port +10%. or set it to 'no refuel' and way-point to an intermediate refueling point.

< Message edited by jmalter -- 10/4/2012 5:19:50 AM >

(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 2
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/4/2012 3:04:02 PM   
ChadS

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 9/5/2012
Status: offline
Thanks much jmalter!

So, if a TF is not told to stay on station, as soon as it does it's mission, it will return home.

When it gets home, it will disband if set to auto-disband. Otherwise, it just hangs out.

(I realize there may be other factors involved, and that Allow Retirement has some other effects with regards to facing off with enemies.)

To have a cargo/transport TF leave a port to go pick stuff up, set it to Stay On Station, and do not load it. When it arrives at destination, select it to load, and turn off the Stay On Station.

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 3
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/4/2012 8:25:35 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
Add some info.

Home Port is very important. While you can replenish a fleet and it can operate just fine with it's Home Port on the other side of the map, there is some logic that uses home port.

If a TF withdraws after a combat, it beelines it towards it's home port.
If a CVTF avoids contact, it beelines it towards it's home port.

So mind where your home port is located if you are operating in non-friendly waters.


Regarding Retirement Allowed, this can be a bad idea if the direct line between your destination and home port goes through enemy water. Like between Pearl Harbor and Sydney. You'll find your allied ships sailing past Japanese occupied Guadalcanal, and through Marshals.

I default most of my fleets to remain on station, only using retirement allowed when I specifically want that behavior. Which is unfortunate, because Retirement Allowed is default in the game.

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 4
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/4/2012 8:57:20 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aphrochine
Regarding Retirement Allowed, this can be a bad idea if the direct line between your destination and home port goes through enemy water. Like between Pearl Harbor and Sydney. You'll find your allied ships sailing past Japanese occupied Guadalcanal, and through Marshals.

waypoints are useful here, from PH/WC to Sydney, waypoint south of air-search from enemy-held atolls. turn 'return same route' on. support the 'southern route' w/ Cats/AVDs.

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 5
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/4/2012 9:42:08 PM   
ChadS

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 9/5/2012
Status: offline
I hate clogging up the forum with 1-off questions, so gonna put one here--almost the same topic.

What's the typical consist of various TFs? I'm mostly curious about the long runs across generally empty ocean, but I suppose it's more important in the contested areas.

I was under the impression that historically, cargo TFs ran relatively small, 3-5 cargo ships, with a DD and CL running with them, though I honestly don't recall where I picked that tidbit up. I've read a few AARs on here that send DMs along with AKs, but I haven't really decided if that's because they have decent ASW, or if there are just a lot of DMs, so they get used for various roles that don't involve mines.

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 6
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/4/2012 10:38:04 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
All depends what are you expecting to meet.

If there are surface raiders, you should include some combat ships. Maybe even some local air-search support.

If there is occasional submarine, one escort is enough, to discourage SS from surfacing, and attacking your transports with deck guns.
Of course, it is better to have several ships, with good ASW, to sink any encountered submarine.

AMs can be useful, when enemy tends to drop some mines into your ports.


But generally, try to build your transport TFs to fit ports, and have ships of comparable speed. And enough range, so they do not refuel constantly and slow your voyage.

(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 7
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 12:34:47 AM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
Just remember the golden rule. Any escort is better than no escort.

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 8
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 2:20:37 AM   
derhexer


Posts: 230
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Hello!

OK, I just checked, and can't find this in the manual, at least, not by doing key word search for the involved terms.

It's my understanding that "Allow Retirement" basically means when a TF finishes it's mission, it'll go home. Correct?

What if, though, the Destination Hex is a port, and Allow Disband is set? Will the TF "retire" into its current port? Or, do I have to set the Home port to the destination port to get that to happen?

Also, if the TF is a transport, but you don't wish for it to actually carry anything, will it leave port immediately if you do not attempt to load it, or will it wait around? (I think I'm seeing that they eventually leave--it could be they are low on OPS, so they don't go right away, but would if they had the OPS.)

I'm trying to evacuate the Philippines, and I'm not recalling what the proper way to do that would be.

Thank you!

Chad S.


Hello, Chad, welcome to the funny farm!

I've set surface combat TFs on missions to engage enemy forces with "Allow Retirement" set and found them heading back to port after meeting an enemy force. I've also had ASW TFs set on patrol zones with "Allow Retirement" only to find them back in port after engaging an enemy sub. I find I have better results with my TFs actually engaging the enemy and staying in the area if I set "Remain on Station"

Enjoy the game!

_____________________________

Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)

(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 9
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 3:14:40 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
forgot to mention another consideration: refueling!

many allied transports carry enough fuel to make the WC-Sydney round-trip w/o refueling, and an escort or 2 will drink from them as needed en route. set fully-fueled convoys departing the WC to 'do not refuel' or 'min refuel', it takes effort to ship fuel to Oz & your islands, it don't make sense to send this fuel back to the states in an xAKs bunkers.

then certain off-map ports (i'm looking at YOU, Cape Town) have dicey fuel situations for the 1st year or so. i ship lots of fuel there from the EC, and set all convoys departing Cape Town to 'min refuel'. it's easy to drink Cape Town dry, and 1 month or so after that, your ships will be immobilized there. set ships arriving at CT from on-map to disband w/o refueling, when you create a convoy there to go on-map, set it to 'min refuel' so it only takes on enough fuel to make the trip.

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 10
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 2:54:28 PM   
ChadS

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 9/5/2012
Status: offline
OK, I've seen this one a couple of times, but haven't figured it out yet--Oz? I don't guess that's in Kansas, is it?

Something that came up on CombatReporter last night indicated that I was running low on oil for Heavy Industry. But, I was under the impression that Allies don't really need to worry about oil and resources. Is there any point in moving these around, and if so, where should they get moved to?

I've been following Sardaukar's newbie AAR, and that's been a fantastic help, but I'm not entirely clear about where smart places are to stockpile supplies and fuel, other than Suva and Pearl. I'm assuming there's somewhere in Australia that is commonly used. Are there other natural distribution centers?

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 11
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 3:24:11 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8305
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChadS

OK, I've seen this one a couple of times, but haven't figured it out yet--Oz? I don't guess that's in Kansas, is it?

Oz = Australia, a wonderful place to visit if you are single, American, and male.

Something that came up on CombatReporter last night indicated that I was running low on oil for Heavy Industry. But, I was under the impression that Allies don't really need to worry about oil and resources. Is there any point in moving these around, and if so, where should they get moved to?

I've been following Sardaukar's newbie AAR, and that's been a fantastic help, but I'm not entirely clear about where smart places are to stockpile supplies and fuel, other than Suva and Pearl. I'm assuming there's somewhere in Australia that is commonly used. Are there other natural distribution centers?

There are many threads devoted to Allied logistics. I'd do some poking and some experimenting. You'll get lots of POVs if you ask here and all will have pros and cons. Me, I wouldn't put a can of corn in Suva let alone make it a major log base. Other opinions differ.



_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 12
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 3:49:29 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5955
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Well...Suva is basically one of the very few places that can hold infinite amount supplies & fuel when build up. New Caledonia of course too, but then it's same as taking it all the way to Sydney anyway. PagoPago might work too. Of course you need to heavily garrison those places anyway against invasion.

If really afraid of IJ capturing your fuel, use NZ.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 13
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 3:57:48 PM   
ChadS

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 9/5/2012
Status: offline
Thanks!

Any advice on the Resources/Oil part of the question? Allies just ignore it altogether, correct?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 14
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/5/2012 4:24:47 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5955
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Yes, Allies only need to move Fuel and Supply.

Of course, if scenario has Heavy Industry in Pearl Harbor, you can make CS convoy from Hilo to PH to transport Resources from Hilo to PH to optimize production. There are some other small things like that, but it's just fine tuning and not at all necessary.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 10/5/2012 4:32:26 PM >


_____________________________

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


(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 15
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/6/2012 12:02:55 AM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
There are many islands that can hold infinite amounts of fuel and supply. So where you place your hubs is fairly dynamic.

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 16
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/6/2012 9:51:46 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4519
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well...Suva is basically one of the very few places that can hold infinite amount supplies & fuel when build up. New Caledonia of course too, but then it's same as taking it all the way to Sydney anyway. PagoPago might work too. Of course you need to heavily garrison those places anyway against invasion.


Sardaukar, I disagree here.

In my opinion Suva is actually one of the worst possible positions for a staging post as it usually is on the Japanese nice-to-have list, exactly because of its
obvious role.

As aphrochine said, the area ia full of bases which can be built up for the job, the most obvious one (and also chosen in my last PBEM) is Vavau. Bigger harbour than Suva
if you build it up, in case you need to. But it is by far not the only one: Lifuka, Tongatapu, and further south a few places in the Cook Islands, last but not
least, Tahiti, if you really have to deviate far South because of a Japanese attack.

I reccommend building up an efficient and a alternate route, where the alternate can be used in case the efficient one is threatened. When the fronts stabilize the routes
obviousely move a bit further North, maybe along the Phoenix/Ellis Islands and later the Gilberts and Marshalls, if this is still neccesary by then.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 10/6/2012 9:52:40 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 17
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/6/2012 1:19:24 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5618
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well...Suva is basically one of the very few places that can hold infinite amount supplies & fuel when build up. New Caledonia of course too, but then it's same as taking it all the way to Sydney anyway. PagoPago might work too. Of course you need to heavily garrison those places anyway against invasion.


Sardaukar, I disagree here.

In my opinion Suva is actually one of the worst possible positions for a staging post as it usually is on the Japanese nice-to-have list, exactly because of its
obvious role.

As aphrochine said, the area ia full of bases which can be built up for the job, the most obvious one (and also chosen in my last PBEM) is Vavau. Bigger harbour than Suva
if you build it up, in case you need to. But it is by far not the only one: Lifuka, Tongatapu, and further south a few places in the Cook Islands, last but not
least, Tahiti, if you really have to deviate far South because of a Japanese attack.

I reccommend building up an efficient and a alternate route, where the alternate can be used in case the efficient one is threatened. When the fronts stabilize the routes
obviousely move a bit further North, maybe along the Phoenix/Ellis Islands and later the Gilberts and Marshalls, if this is still neccesary by then.

+1

As an IJ player, Suva is almost always on my "knock it down" list. I frequently won't hold it, just take it and then use it only as a picket ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 18
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/6/2012 1:56:46 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5955
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well...Suva is basically one of the very few places that can hold infinite amount supplies & fuel when build up. New Caledonia of course too, but then it's same as taking it all the way to Sydney anyway. PagoPago might work too. Of course you need to heavily garrison those places anyway against invasion.


Sardaukar, I disagree here.

In my opinion Suva is actually one of the worst possible positions for a staging post as it usually is on the Japanese nice-to-have list, exactly because of its
obvious role.

As aphrochine said, the area ia full of bases which can be built up for the job, the most obvious one (and also chosen in my last PBEM) is Vavau. Bigger harbour than Suva
if you build it up, in case you need to. But it is by far not the only one: Lifuka, Tongatapu, and further south a few places in the Cook Islands, last but not
least, Tahiti, if you really have to deviate far South because of a Japanese attack.

I reccommend building up an efficient and a alternate route, where the alternate can be used in case the efficient one is threatened. When the fronts stabilize the routes
obviousely move a bit further North, maybe along the Phoenix/Ellis Islands and later the Gilberts and Marshalls, if this is still neccesary by then.


Well..you need base that can be build to 10 combined (airfield and port combined, 5+5 as average) to make it really viable supply hub. Of course Suva is high on IJ list for obvious reasons, and similarly Allies should make big effort to retain it.

There are alternatives, as you and others have stated, and they work well too. Just that losing Suva & New Caledonia forces Allies to have fairly limited "Central Pacific strategy". Suva is both excellent supply dump and staging area for future advance.


_____________________________

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


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 19
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/7/2012 9:12:58 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well...Suva is basically one of the very few places that can hold infinite amount supplies & fuel when build up. New Caledonia of course too, but then it's same as taking it all the way to Sydney anyway. PagoPago might work too. Of course you need to heavily garrison those places anyway against invasion.


Sardaukar, I disagree here.

In my opinion Suva is actually one of the worst possible positions for a staging post as it usually is on the Japanese nice-to-have list, exactly because of its
obvious role.

As aphrochine said, the area ia full of bases which can be built up for the job, the most obvious one (and also chosen in my last PBEM) is Vavau. Bigger harbour than Suva
if you build it up, in case you need to. But it is by far not the only one: Lifuka, Tongatapu, and further south a few places in the Cook Islands, last but not
least, Tahiti, if you really have to deviate far South because of a Japanese attack.

I reccommend building up an efficient and a alternate route, where the alternate can be used in case the efficient one is threatened. When the fronts stabilize the routes
obviousely move a bit further North, maybe along the Phoenix/Ellis Islands and later the Gilberts and Marshalls, if this is still neccesary by then.


Well..you need base that can be build to 10 combined (airfield and port combined, 5+5 as average) to make it really viable supply hub. Of course Suva is high on IJ list for obvious reasons, and similarly Allies should make big effort to retain it.

There are alternatives, as you and others have stated, and they work well too. Just that losing Suva & New Caledonia forces Allies to have fairly limited "Central Pacific strategy". Suva is both excellent supply dump and staging area for future advance.



Correcting small typo error here. An early patch reduced the non-spoilage feature to apply to bases built up to a combined level 9. This change made many small island dot bases potential candidates to be developed into hubs.

Alfred

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 20
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/7/2012 9:32:16 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3633
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChadS

OK, I've seen this one a couple of times, but haven't figured it out yet--Oz? I don't guess that's in Kansas, is it?

Oz = Australia, a wonderful place to visit if you are single, American, and male.

Something that came up on CombatReporter last night indicated that I was running low on oil for Heavy Industry. But, I was under the impression that Allies don't really need to worry about oil and resources. Is there any point in moving these around, and if so, where should they get moved to?

I've been following Sardaukar's newbie AAR, and that's been a fantastic help, but I'm not entirely clear about where smart places are to stockpile supplies and fuel, other than Suva and Pearl. I'm assuming there's somewhere in Australia that is commonly used. Are there other natural distribution centers?

There are many threads devoted to Allied logistics. I'd do some poking and some experimenting. You'll get lots of POVs if you ask here and all will have pros and cons. Me, I wouldn't put a can of corn in Suva let alone make it a major log base. Other opinions differ.




As Bullwinkle said, there are many, many, many threads on logistics. Reading one thread will not suffice. Means players who wish to master the subject have to do a lot of research themselves.

Anyway below are relevant threads to read. I'll be editing this post soon as I only know of one technique for including links one at a time.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2430886&mpage=1&key=australia%2Coil?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2941377&mpage=1&key=logistics
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3055996&mpage=1&key=australia%2Cfuel
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3172087&mpage=1&key=australia%2Cfuel?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3067348&mpage=1&key=supply%2Chubs?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2639842&mpage=1&key=allied%2Cindustry?

That should be enough to start off with. There are many other relevant threads not listed above. One overview thread not to be overlooked, for as night follows day, the OP is going to ask this soon, is the following "Logistics 101" thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2878790&mpage=1&key=logistics%2C101�

Alfred

< Message edited by Alfred -- 10/7/2012 10:12:24 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 21
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/10/2012 3:04:00 PM   
Maulet

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 7/28/2006
From: Barcelona
Status: offline
I use Pago Pago and Palmyra, making a bridge between them. Pago pago doesn't has a big port for fuel but no problem for supply. From pago pago I can navigate to sydney without any problem.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 22
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/10/2012 3:05:00 PM   
Maulet

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 7/28/2006
From: Barcelona
Status: offline
edit: duplicate

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 23
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/10/2012 3:10:38 PM   
ChadS

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 9/5/2012
Status: offline
What kind of timeframe does it take to start to get all the supply lines worked out so you start to prosecute the war? Should things be falling into place by, say, mid-1942? I'm finding that just sorting the tankers and AKs is a full-time job for the first several weeks.

ChadS

(in reply to Maulet)
Post #: 24
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/10/2012 5:14:00 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2653
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
ChadS,

I am usually starting my offensives by mid-42, as you mentioned. Deciding which bases you'll use and building them up rapidly is key. Early on you don't have all that much to defend a base with, so you either have to wait or risk losing the engineers to a Japanese invasion.

Another tactic is to strip the Philippines and Dutch East Indies of every land based unit and ship you can escape with. There are three base units in the PI's that can be sent south to Darwin, and a couple of Dutch and British units as well. I send all of them to Darwin, and have them build up that base ASAP. I also run fuel convoys from Java and Borneo down to Darwin right up until Surabaya falls, to build up a fuel reserve.

In my current game, it's 1/43 and I have retaken the Solomons from Torokina down to Lunga, along with the islands east of New Guinea. I also hold two of the atolls south of Apamama in the Central Pacific. My main bases are Suva, Noumea, and Luganville, along with Lunga and Tulagi in the Solomons.

(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 25
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/13/2012 5:26:18 AM   
MuguNiner


Posts: 122
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2878790&mpage=1&key=logistics%2C101?

Alfred
[/quote]

Thanks, that was a great education!

_____________________________

USMC 1976-80

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 26
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/13/2012 6:10:21 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChadS
What kind of timeframe does it take to start to get all the supply lines worked out so you start to prosecute the war? Should things be falling into place by, say, mid-1942? I'm finding that just sorting the tankers and AKs is a full-time job for the first several weeks.

yeah, it takes a while to get things sorted, but by 6/42 you should be well-organized - all the low-endurance ships flee to Oz or India, the high-endurance ones go to CT. IMO you should use at least half your EC<>CT xAKs convoys w/ fuel for Cape Town, it's a bugger if CT dries up. early on (& later on as well) it's your on-map fuel convoys that need the most protection from raiders, your combat fleets need fuel to operate effectively, every time you lose a TK/AO you're losing a bit from your combat options. losing some of them is inevitable, losing a lot of them is avoidable!

early-war, check all your off-map bases & the on-map ports that receive their convoys. you need to build up these ports w/ engrs, & improve their un/load capacity w/ Navsupport - check these bases to turn replacements ON for LCUs that don't begin the game at full strength.

by mid-42 you'll start to get new AKs & TKs on the WC or at Balboa, check your ship reinforcement screen for new arrivals, send ASW ships to escort them from, say, Portland down to LA.

also, there's quite a few ships in the initial allied transport fleet that can be upgraded to APAs or AKAs. you need to find all these guys and send them to safety at Mare Island or Alameda, to await their upgrades. you're gonna need them all, to create effective AmphTFs.

< Message edited by jmalter -- 10/13/2012 6:43:09 AM >

(in reply to ChadS)
Post #: 27
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/13/2012 7:05:43 PM   
Bobdina1

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/28/2012
From: Fla.
Status: offline
jmalter, great tip about keeping the ships that will upgrade to AKA's out of harms way. Never thought about that before. Thanks

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 28
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/13/2012 10:04:33 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2653
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
The problem with not using or risking the AK/AP ships until you can convert them to AKA/APA types is that doesn't happen until mid-1943. The AK/AP ships will still unload faster than the xAP/xAK types, so they are valuable in your early invasion attempts as well. I do use these ships early on but I make sure I have them well defended with surface ships and escorts in the TF, and often a CVTF nearby to provide some kind of CAP over them as well.

BTW, several of those AP types were used at the actual Operation Watchtower invasion of Guadalcanal; IIRC one was sunk and some others were damaged, so even though they are valuable later they still should be used before they can be upgraded.

(in reply to Bobdina1)
Post #: 29
RE: Yet Another Newb Question - 10/14/2012 12:16:51 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1214
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
the AKs convert in 3/43, the APs in 6/43. i've nothing against using them, if they're well-protected as John has outlined. perhaps my advice should have been, locate & assemble them into protected groups early in the game, & avoid using them for general-cargo duty that can be handled by other ships. it wouldn't be good to have them scattered all over the Pacific, far from the yards, as their conversion date approaches.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Yet Another Newb Question Page: [1] 2   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

0.125