I'm in the same boat as Chris21wen. There seems to be a piece of the puzzle missing for us that is know to most. It sounds to me like the new manual won't be available until a new full game download comes out. Is that how it works?

That was my first thought and seems to be the one that makes the most sense.

Perhaps that is what he meant (and he left the '+' off after the '9'), but since the % associated with 'Build to size'=9 and combined SPF=9 is only 50% I would have thought there would be more engineer allowance for combined SPFs greater than 9. But maybe not...

Huh? 9+9=9 ?? I'm looking at Sydney right now and it is 9(9) and 8(7), combined SPS 16.

I don't think I got my question across. I'm not confused by the actual size vs. SPS, I'm questioning Graymanes header that uses 'Combined SPS (port SPS + airfield SPS)', i.e. you add the two together.

I'm puzzled by the header in Graymanes first table. The header describes "Combined SPS (Port SPS + Airfield SPS)", but the values only go up to 9 and combined SPS's frequently exceed that. What am I missing?

Section 9.5 of the manual says that, for each engineering squad involved in costruction, one supply point is consumed every twelve hours of construction operations.

It goes on to say that "Construction costs to increase an airfield or port by one increase as the current size of the airfield or ...

I went back to get screenshots only to find that my AK's had moved away during the last turn resolution because I forgot to set the home port to San Francisco where the loading was to occur. I moved them back and now the problem is gone which makes it even harder to understand. If it happens again I ...

I have a couple of units I'm trying to load on AK's under transport orders that are greyed out. The reason is given as 'unit not in strategic mode' , but the unit is in 'Strat' mode with 0 packing days and it is attached to an unrestricted command.

What else do I need to look for?

You need to get used to some game mechanics. TFs move in sequence they are numbered.

Thus, if your ASW/Minesweeping etc. is higher numbered than Transport TF, transports move first and can get into minefields and subs before it's other TF's turn to move.

Follow TF setting makes it bit more ...

Note that TFs move in number sequence they are created.

So if you create e.g. ASW TF to protect your convoy, make that TF first.


So you are saying that the ASW TF should lead and the transport TF set to follow it?

What if you want a transport, ASW and SC TF to travel together, and they ...

What are the most effective ways to construct escort packages within the WitP TF orders system?

Lets say you have a TF with 'Transport' (tTF) as their mission and some AP's inside and you want to protect it from surface combat and submarines. Should you:


1 - put the surface combatants and ships ...

..... The forces you talk about were small, at anchor, and attached to merchant class shipping., in other words pinned and unable to respond appropriately.


Ok, this is what I really want to get at.


In regards to "escort methods/configurations" normally for example I have a surface TF ...

I don't dispute what you quote, but they are aggregate results and instances of squadron actions. And remember I'm not talking about ordinary poor performance from my escort ships, I'm talking about no ability to inflict even one shell hit on a single DD during the entirety of two incidents (not ...

Thanks. I'm disappointed to hear that this may be a typical early-game experience. I'm aware of Japan's advantages early-war, and the other factors you describe, but the imbalance of these engagements was so extreme, and the distance the DD had to cover sole so great, that I really can't think of ...

I'm new to WitP, but a couple of recent combats have shaken my confidence in the games realism.

In both intstances a single Japanese destroyer waded into the middle of a flottila of ships, ravaged them, and walked away without a scratch.

In the first case I had a TF of 7-8 transports unloading at ...

Trugrit wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:35 pm
For CS...set the Refuel option to “Do not Refuel” and it won’t refuel at the destination.
(This is per the Flyout)

Great! I hadn't seen that before, thanks.

That would help, but i'd still end up using a good bit of the fuel I just transported when the TF refuels at Brisbane/Sydney.

Perhaps the only way to minimize this is to set the TF to minimal refueling and do a waypoint on the outward voyage (?)

For high endurance convoys doing ocean crossing deliveries of fuel, I don't want them to refuel at the target base, only at the source base. How do I specify that they should do a full refuel, but only at the start of each voyage (i.e. at the source base)?

FOW?