Matrix Games Forums

Is it possible to make it take resources in return trip? instead of sending a convoy with supplies and another to take resources?

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.

Ok, it seems it is in Automatic Convoy which does not work

I have never really tried auto convoy, only use the CS convoys.

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

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

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

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.

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

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 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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

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.

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.

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.