Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CS-Continuous Supply 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 >> CS-Continuous Supply question Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/24/2020 11:50:13 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Is it possible to make it take resources in return trip? instead of sending a convoy with supplies and another to take resources?
Post #: 1
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 12:03:16 AM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: online
Yes. On the TF screen after you set up the CS convoy on the right side there is a return cargo selection. It can be either fuel or resources for a cargo TF.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 2
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 12:26:54 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Ok, it seems it is in Automatic Convoy which does not work

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 3
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 12:36:26 AM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: online
I have never really tried auto convoy, only use the CS convoys.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 4
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 1:32:15 AM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 341
Joined: 10/17/2009
From: NC, USA
Status: offline
I have not used Auto-Convoy for awhile and went back to look at it. Suspect the key difference here is Auto Convoy is selected via the "base", using the menu from the for Auto-Convoy from the top of the screen you're selecting the base that will participate in and receive auto-convoy support, then adding a pool of ships to support these bases. Unlike CS-Convoy which is selected by TF, allowing you designate a specific origination & destination port to include return trip cargo.

Since auto convoy is a general pool vs. specific action there is no option to provide specific return cargos. So to do what you'd like to you'll need to setup specific CS-convoy routes vs use the general auto convoy pooling.

My 2 cents...not a feature I use but that's my read on it.

Kevin

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 5
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 2:06:25 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2115
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
I tried auto-convoy early on and it wasn't so good. It would send small TFs without escort all over the place, including within range of Betties. To me, the CS system is great. It's not too hard to set CS convoys up and then forget about them until there's a raid in the area.

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to kbfchicago)
Post #: 6
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 3:24:31 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6179
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
I am certain that all the criticism made over the years re the Auto Convoy system is due to simply not using it properly.

1.  You have to nominate which bases are within the system.  Why would you put any base within range of enemy aircraft?  Doing so is just not smart play.

2.  The routes from the supply source to the nominated bases will take the shortest route possible, taking into account known enemy air concentrations.  Again why would you put a base into the system where the route to it will pass through potential enemy air concentrations?  It isn't difficult to see what hexes will be traversed.

3.  Ships have to be specifically allocated to the system.  That means not just merchantmen but also escorts.  If you put too few escorts into the system, of course there are going to be some convoys without escorts.  Whose fault is that?

The auto convoy system is intended to service the area way behind the frontline, where no enemy activity is expected.  The continuous supply convoy system, with its ability to incorporate player designed waypoints precisely because enemy activity is possible, is designed for logistical operations closer to the frontlines.

Alfred

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 7
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 3:41:49 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 7643
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I am certain that all the criticism made over the years re the Auto Convoy system is due to simply not using it properly.

1.  You have to nominate which bases are within the system.  Why would you put any base within range of enemy aircraft?  Doing so is just not smart play.

2.  The routes from the supply source to the nominated bases will take the shortest route possible, taking into account known enemy air concentrations.  Again why would you put a base into the system where the route to it will pass through potential enemy air concentrations?  It isn't difficult to see what hexes will be traversed.

3.  Ships have to be specifically allocated to the system.  That means not just merchantmen but also escorts.  If you put too few escorts into the system, of course there are going to be some convoys without escorts.  Whose fault is that?

The auto convoy system is intended to service the area way behind the frontline, where no enemy activity is expected.  The continuous supply convoy system, with its ability to incorporate player designed waypoints precisely because enemy activity is possible, is designed for logistical operations closer to the frontlines.

Alfred


In other words, you have to be smarter than what you are working with. Correct?

That said, I have never used the auto convoy system.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 8
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 5:23:08 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6179
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
I wouldn't say that.  Rather one needs to properly understand what it is one is doing.

Both the Auto Convoy and Continuous Supply systems are in the game primarily to reduce the micromanagement aspect of the game.  Players who aren't fuzzed by the micromanagement workload can not employ either system.  Those who want to reduce micromanagement can employ either or both systems.

Auto convoy has the advantage over continuous supply of not wasting supply or fuel.  This is because it is entirely driven by demand factors hence it only visits participating bases which have a supply/fuel shortfall.  As the participating bases should be well away from the frontlines they will be occupied by few units and their supply/fuel demands will not result in spoilage.

Continuous supply convoys are not demand driven.  They will continue to dump supply/fuel, without regard to the spoilage limit, essentially until the player stops the operation.

It is the responsibility of the player to understand the ramifications of their actions.  This is always the case, not just with regard to auto convoy or continuous supply.  Just because these two features do not generate boomskis is no reason to misuse them.  Its like players who don't bother understanding that in AE aircraft can only have one device attached to their centreline hardpoint, then complain when they discover the Vildebeest drop tank device and torpedo device are centreline attached, hence one can have one device but not both.

Alfred

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 9
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 5:51:12 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2322
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
I tried using the Auto Convoy at first and I found it was more work than it was worth. I play allied side and find myself swimming in supplies so it is easy to dump a years supply at all the backwater bases and not bother to look at it for several months. The CS convoys are easier, more intuitive and my only problem was setting one up for a island that was taken and having a couple of xAKs sail obliviously into an enemy harbor. Lesson learned.

CS convoy is just easier for me to wrap my pea-sized brain around...and I like easy.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 10
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 12:04:19 PM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 341
Joined: 10/17/2009
From: NC, USA
Status: offline
In my case, I used it early on but found I enjoyed the level of control that comes from manually setting up supply routes or using the more targeted CS convoys. Appreciate the reinforcement of the concept Alfred, perhaps it's time I give it another shot. Now that I've got significantly more experience with the game am likely to better exploit this feature.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 11
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 1:43:25 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6179
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
To remover any doubt, I am not advocating one way or the other as to whether Auto Convoy or Continuous Supply should be utilised.  There are pros and cons for their use.  All I am saying is unless either system is properly set up, sub optimal results ensue.  To date almost all commentary regarding Auto Convoys emanates from players who do not set it up properly.

Alfred

(in reply to kbfchicago)
Post #: 12
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 2:02:21 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
But you can't still take resources back with auto convoy.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 13
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 2:18:48 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6179
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

But you can't still take resources back with auto convoy.


Who said that. It certainly wasn't me. More importantly it is contrary to what Don Bowen posted.

It really shouldn't be left to me, 11 years after the game was released, to have to correct patently false information. Especially when the correct information is very easily found on the forum.

Alfred

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 14
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 3:55:55 PM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: online
I want to state that I was not disparaging the auto-convoy system. I have not really used it because I do not feel it fits my play style( and my desire to micromanage ), not that there is anything wrong with it.

The OP's title asked about CS convoys, not auto-convoys. I have no idea if the auto-convoy system will allow the return of resources or not.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 6/25/2020 3:56:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 15
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/25/2020 11:54:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 19517
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The documentation in the manual on auto convoys isn't all that helpful, to be honest.

Takes a fair bit of experimentation to use...I think speed is very important in task force selection.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/26/2020 12:46:36 AM >

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 16
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/26/2020 12:20:02 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 7643
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
Just think of all of the changes done after the manual was made.

My OCB says that I should do all the convoys myself, even if they are CS convoys.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 17
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/26/2020 5:33:48 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

But you can't still take resources back with auto convoy.


Who said that. It certainly wasn't me. More importantly it is contrary to what Don Bowen posted.

It really shouldn't be left to me, 11 years after the game was released, to have to correct patently false information. Especially when the correct information is very easily found on the forum.

Alfred


I said and i maybe wrong but until now i haven't found any information to contradict it.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 18
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/26/2020 6:49:27 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 19517
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili



I said and i maybe wrong but until now i haven't found any information to contradict it.



Says it clearly in the manual, for Japan at least.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 19
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/26/2020 8:24:24 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Yes it says there but it is not working.

It is sending TF's to collect resource without supply and sending TF's with supply.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 20
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/26/2020 8:32:19 PM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4675
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: online
I think it works as intended, but you have to carefully read the manual:

15.5 AUTOMATIC CONVOYS
By using the Automatic Convoys system, players can select certain ship types (AK’s, TK’s, and
certain escort supply ships) to be placed into a computer controlled system that will attempt
to keep bases supplied with needed supplies and fuel, and for the Japanese, will attempt to
pick up resources and oil to return them to Japan for production. Ships are put into this system
by the player at Osaka, San Francisco, or Karachi, and bases must be specifically set to be
included in the system to receive supplies/fuel or have resources picked up (do this by pressing
on the Auto Convoy System button at the top of the main game screen; bases may also be
added into the Auto Convoy system from the Base orders screen).

The important word is OR in the highlighted portion. It does not say it will deliver supplies and return resources with the same TF. It says it will send a TF to deliver supplies or fuel or it will send a TF to pick up resources.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 6/26/2020 8:34:58 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 21
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/26/2020 8:36:46 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 15248
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes it says there but it is not working.

It is sending TF's to collect resource without supply and sending TF's with supply.

With CS convoys you have to start them and home-port them in the port where they will load their main cargo, and then after that you can specify a return cargo from the destination port. I don't use autoconvoy, but I would expect the same - no going out to "pick up" the main cargo. You cannot introduce a third port into the CS route except as a refueling waypoint - i.e. you can't deliver your original cargo to the destination port and then divert to another port for the return cargo. I expect the same for autoconvoy.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 22
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/27/2020 12:31:30 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Thanks i have found that in Continuous Supply you can do that, the button is available to be clicked.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 23
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/27/2020 12:42:09 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6179
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
TFs created under the Automatic Convoy system have always, subject to certain conditions, been capable of returning back to San Francisco, Colombo or Osaka, with raw materials.  This state of affairs has always been obvious from:

(a) s.15.5 of the manual
(b) posts dated 19 July 2009 and 8 August 2010 from Don Bowen
(c) post dated 2 January 2011 from michaelm75au
(d) patch #6, code change fix #71
(e) January 2011 explanation from michaem75au in various posts regarding the circumstances which led to (d) above
(f) players posting their Operations Reports which list specific TFs loading resources

Up to a point, I can understand players who aren't interested in using the Auto Convoy system not doing any of the above homework but where is the excuse for those actually interested in the system to not do their research.  There is no compelling reason why I should do their work, especially when zero facts have been provided to support the assertion that raw materials are not carried on the return trip.


For the benefit of those who have tried to be helpful in this thread, I will point out the following pertinent conditions.

1.  The Auto Convoy system is entirely operated by the computer.  The only human input is in selecting the participating bases and providing the ships.

2.  Based on demand, processed goods (supplies/fuel) are carried on the outward trip to participating bases.  For the return trip from that base, the same TF may load raw materials (resources/oil) under certain circumstances.

3.  Only those raw materials surplus to local requirements are potentially available to be loaded for the return trip.  Before you ask, no I won't state how the surplus is determined.  The devs have had many opportunities to disclose that threshold if they were inclined to do so.

4.  Loading of any return cargo is dependent on the TF being actually docked.  As the system is operated by the computer the standard rules for auto docking apply, the player cannot manually force docking.

5.  Originally whether a return cargo was taken on board was dependent solely on checks at that base.  The patch #6 change introduced a further check to take into account the raw material stocks held at the originating base (that is San Francisco, Colombo or Osaka) as appropriate.  If a bug has been introduced, you can thank the Allied players who convinced michaelm75au that San Francisco did not need the delivery of raw materials.

6.  Irrespective of whether a base has surplus raw materials, or the TF can dock at the port, not all bases qualify to provide a return cargo.  Qualification is dependent on regional location.    Again, before you ask, no I won't state how the qualification is determined.  The devs have had many opportunities to disclose the regional boundaries if they were inclined to do so.

7.  Finally there is the obvious point that the returning TF must contain ships possessing appropriate cargo holds which can carry the surplus raw materials.



With zero facts provided, I see absolutely no bug being in play.  Merely the appropriate conditions not being met.

Alfred

Edit: oops, corrected an important typo in point 2 above re what constitutes raw mat4rials.

< Message edited by Alfred -- 6/27/2020 1:17:57 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 24
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/27/2020 1:12:09 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 7643
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online
As I previously stated, you have to be smarter than what you are working with. If you do not do the research as to what can be done and how, then don't complain if it does not work the way that you want it to work.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 25
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/27/2020 1:19:01 AM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 7852
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

TFs created under the Automatic Convoy system have always, subject to certain conditions, been capable of returning back to San Francisco, Colombo or Osaka, with raw materials.  This state of affairs has always been obvious from:

(a) s.15.5 of the manual
(b) posts dated 19 July 2009 and 8 August 2010 from Don Bowen
(c) post dated 2 January 2011 from michaelm75au
(d) patch #6, code change fix #71
(e) January 2011 explanation from michaem75au in various posts regarding the circumstances which led to (d) above
(f) players posting their Operations Reports which list specific TFs loading resources

Up to a point, I can understand players who aren't interested in using the Auto Convoy system not doing any of the above homework but where is the excuse for those actually interested in the system to not do their research.  There is no compelling reason why I should do their work, especially when zero facts have been provided to support the assertion that raw materials are not carried on the return trip.


For the benefit of those who have tried to be helpful in this thread, I will point out the following pertinent conditions.

1.  The Auto Convoy system is entirely operated by the computer.  The only human input is in selecting the participating bases and providing the ships.

2.  Based on demand, processed goods (supplies/fuel) are carried on the outward trip to participating bases.  For the return trip from that base, the same TF may load raw materials (resources/fuel) under certain circumstances.

3.  Only those raw materials surplus to local requirements are potentially available to be loaded for the return trip.  Before you ask, no I won't state how the surplus is determined.  The devs have had many opportunities to disclose that threshold if they were inclined to do so.

4.  Loading of any return cargo is dependent on the TF being actually docked.  As the system is operated by the computer the standard rules for auto docking apply, the player cannot manually force docking.

5.  Originally whether a return cargo was taken on board was dependent solely on checks at that base.  The patch #6 change introduced a further check to take into account the raw material stocks held at the originating base (that is San Francisco, Colombo or Osaka) as appropriate.  If a bug has been introduced, you can thank the Allied players who convinced michaelm75au that San Francisco did not need the delivery of raw materials.

6.  Irrespective of whether a base has surplus raw materials, or the TF can dock at the port, not all bases qualify to provide a return cargo.  Qualification is dependent on regional location.    Again, before you ask, no I won't state how the qualification is determined.  The devs have had many opportunities to disclose the regional boundaries if they were inclined to do so.

7.  Finally there is the obvious point that the returning TF must contain ships possessing appropriate cargo holds which can carry the surplus raw materials.



With zero facts provided, I see absolutely no bug being in play.  Merely the appropriate conditions not being met.

Alfred

Thor has spoken! The game is working as designed.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 26
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/27/2020 2:14:10 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 19517
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I don't normally put bases in that have resources or oil to be brought back to Osaka, but will do so to see what happens...

I tend to set up the Japanese Islands around Osaka and then I pretty much simply forget about it, only checking every now and then to make sure there are escorts with the convoys once some Allied subs show up in the area.

I also tend to use low vp ships like xakls trading the added fuel cost for less clicks but also to make use of the smaller ports better.

Ok, not the best example but the convoy to Naha is picking up resources. It is not taking supplies there, since there is 50K supplies already there and just two JNAF air base units there, plus a small construction engineer unit and the small cd unit at Naga plus 20 or so planes.

Interesting to note that the tanker convoy is small enough to dock at a level 1 port, but isn't docked at Koshiki. 1,550 tons to dock at a port level 1 (6,000 ton capacity).








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/27/2020 2:33:33 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 27
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/27/2020 2:38:00 AM   
jdsrae


Posts: 1508
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: The Land Downunder
Status: online
I’ve noticed that even if they are small enough, TFs don’t auto dock at size 1 or 2 ports.
I think they do at size 3+ so I’ve expanded a few ports to size 3 to avoid having to keep checkin those TFs.

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no CrackSabbath): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 28
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/27/2020 12:12:08 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 19517
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

I’ve noticed that even if they are small enough, TFs don’t auto dock at size 1 or 2 ports.
I think they do at size 3+ so I’ve expanded a few ports to size 3 to avoid having to keep checkin those TFs.


I never paid that much attention to this before. The system worked for what I wanted it to...but I think I will play around a bit more with it.

The biggest problem with auto convoy for Japan I think is the wasted fuel going to Osaka I think, making it less than ideal for resource convoys, but an ok trade off for supply convoys, imo.



(in reply to jdsrae)
Post #: 29
RE: CS-Continuous Supply question - 6/28/2020 2:57:00 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

As I previously stated, you have to be smarter than what you are working with. If you do not do the research as to what can be done and how, then don't complain if it does not work the way that you want it to work.


Why you doing statements about what you don't know about?

1 -The auto convoy is sending on propose convoys to bring resources, it goes to that port - which btw have no industry - and takes them to Osaka

2- the auto convoy is also sending TF's to that port with supply. They don't bring resources back.



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> CS-Continuous Supply question Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.219