Hey!

[bradfordkay]

I have a question about the "use minimum ships" button. Is this mainly going to be useful for transporting troops between your own bases (as opposed to creating invasion TFs)? It would seem to me that if the program uses the minimum number of ships it will choose the largest ones possible, which would not be suitable for an invasion TF.

[Tactics]

That is very cool. I always underload my TF's, and I also always round-up when calculating - Because I'm lazy.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

So who built it? [:D]

Well, I don't want to belabor the point, because it's clear that it will be SAIEW (and that's OK, not complaining).

But, let's say you have an invasion TF with a couple of LCUs but also a BF and maybe some construction engineers. You want to sail this as a combined TF to the destination (to share escorts, reduce the chance that two TFs end up in different hexes and one doesn't have air cover, etc.) You get to the hex-next-to-destination, and want to split off th BF and construction engineers to sit in the hex with your CVs until the base is taken; why land them over the beach and take the casualties? So, you very tediously find all of the ships with the right units, split them out, check them, find an error because you confused the Maru AEIOUahura with the Maru AEIOUahurs, fix it, and go on with life.

[Yamato hugger]

Well the amount of room ground units take up in ships is a fraction of what it used to be, so it wont be like having to dig out 30 ships to get that base force out. I doubt you will see these "typical" 100 ship transport fleets that you see in WitP. I think 20 (+/- a few) is about the biggest I have made, and I am notorious for building the biggies.

[Footslogger]

Hello. I have the lastest 1.8.0.6 patch but the screens that Don Bowen and m10bob show very different options than I have on my WitP. For instance, I have only these ways to attack: defense, bombardment and shock. I am curious if they are beta testing for Admiral's Edition? So guys please get back to me.

Thank you for your time and God Bless!

[doc smith]

Don,

Thanks for this information. I see that the ratio on figure 2 is about 6.5. That is, one load point of troops on an AP is 6.5 times one load point on AK. Put another way, if I have 15,000 troops to load and have three APs with 6,000 tons each, I can load it. To put it on exclusively AK shipping, I multiply 15,000 by 6.5 I will need 97,500 tons of AK space. I've used this method successfully in the game to determine load requirements. And as you say, you can see who is loaded on which ships. When I assemble shipping at a debarkation point, I create subordinate convoys with enough space to load one unit. When all subordinate convoys have loaded, then I merge them for my invasion force.

Also have learned that if you load 4,000 troops on 4 APs with 6,000 capacity, all the troops will load, then it begins loading supplies. More APs, fewer troops per AP. This pays off during landing/invasion. Troop losses during landing should not be allowed to go on for day after day. Land an initial force strong enough to gain control of the base, then unload. Otherwise, as long as the enemy has the base, landing troops will suffer losses. Landing supplies, however, do not cause losses. I usually have a cargo TF slaved to the invasion TF with "do not unload" instructions. On the first day of invasion, as large a force as possible lands from the APs, then next turn (if the base hasn't been taken), the APs get "do not unload" to stop troop landings. The Cargo TF begins unloading on turn 2 to keep the invasion force supplied. Works fairly well and keeps losses down. AKs are good at hauling cargo and off-loading over the beach, APs are good at getting lots of troops on the beach the first turn. I hope to learn how to use small landing craft (barges, LCVPs).

Peace.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Hello. I have the lastest 1.8.0.6 patch but the screens that Don Bowen and m10bob show very different options than I have on my WitP. For instance, I have only these ways to attack: defense, bombardment and shock. I am curious if they are beta testing for Admiral's Edition? So guys please get back to me.

Thank you for your time and God Bless!

Those screen shots that I posted were preliminary views of AE screens. They are not yet released.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: doc smith

Don,

Thanks for this information. I see that the ratio on figure 2 is about 6.5. That is, one load point of troops on an AP is 6.5 times one load point on AK. Put another way, if I have 15,000 troops to load and have three APs with 6,000 tons each, I can load it. To put it on exclusively AK shipping, I multiply 15,000 by 6.5 I will need 97,500 tons of AK space. I've used this method successfully in the game to determine load requirements. And as you say, you can see who is loaded on which ships. When I assemble shipping at a debarkation point, I create subordinate convoys with enough space to load one unit. When all subordinate convoys have loaded, then I merge them for my invasion force.

The cross load rate (troops in cargo space) varies somewhat depending on ship type. In general, it is much better to go for natural load (troops in troops space, equipment and cargo in cargo space). A unit loads based on each device. Squads, engineers, "people stuff" are troops and load in troop space while guns, vehicles, "equipment" load in cargo space.

Also have learned that if you load 4,000 troops on 4 APs with 6,000 capacity, all the troops will load, then it begins loading supplies. More APs, fewer troops per AP. This pays off during landing/invasion. Troop losses during landing should not be allowed to go on for day after day. Land an initial force strong enough to gain control of the base, then unload. Otherwise, as long as the enemy has the base, landing troops will suffer losses. Landing supplies, however, do not cause losses. I usually have a cargo TF slaved to the invasion TF with "do not unload" instructions. On the first day of invasion, as large a force as possible lands from the APs, then next turn (if the base hasn't been taken), the APs get "do not unload" to stop troop landings. The Cargo TF begins unloading on turn 2 to keep the invasion force supplied. Works fairly well and keeps losses down. AKs are good at hauling cargo and off-loading over the beach, APs are good at getting lots of troops on the beach the first turn. I hope to learn how to use small landing craft (barges, LCVPs).

Peace.

Pretty good advice. In AE it's not AP/AK anymore, but type of capacity. APs can have a mixture of troop and cargo space. AKs too but they are more likely to be all cargo space. Also AE will require you to load enough supply to support the initial invasion. The player does not have to do anything - the load routines handle it. If you create an amphibious TF and load troops, you will get approximately 3 days supply auto loaded onto the TF. No worries for plannning - allocation is adjusted so you will know up front it will fit.

Task Force loading is more realistic, as are many of the processes around amphibious invasions. Players will need to plan invasions a bit more carefully.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I have a question about the "use minimum ships" button. Is this mainly going to be useful for transporting troops between your own bases (as opposed to creating invasion TFs)? It would seem to me that if the program uses the minimum number of ships it will choose the largest ones possible, which would not be suitable for an invasion TF.

It will select ships to use from those already in the TF. It will match the ships to the units being loaded, so larger might well be selected.

[RevRick]

IIRC, don't the ships/TFs also have to prepare - which would emulate combat loading for the Gator Freighters? I mean, it's not like you can just grab several APs lying around a couple of days before the invasion and say "Cram the 1st MarDiv on board so we can take Guadalcanal." Having the precious little time (seems to me Frank said they had about a month, more or less, mostly less, I think) to prepare was bad enough as it was. If so, then is there a 'bonus' of some sort for both LCUs and TFs prepping in the same port? Could you elucidate, por favor?

[Shark7]

From what I am seeing here there are two things that I'm already really liking. The 'Get more Ships' and 'Use Minimum ships' buttons.

As it stands now, I have to mentally count up the space of each type I am putting in the TF, and sometimes even when tracking you don't get enough or get way too much. In my current game I'm having that very issue now. Half the LCU sailed and the other half had to be quickly and hastily loaded onto a new TF because I had miscalculated the necessary AP space by 4k. So now my well planned invasion is a hodgepodge of units arriving over several days. That is irritating.

[wworld7]

In my early WITP play I used to try to be exact with my loadings.

But then I found that if I need to load a 12K point LCU that it was better if I used 24K worth of APs. If I was flush 36K works VERY well. It also lessons the problem of math errors.

Everybody off the ships in 1 turn is the ultimate goal, so the ships can run away to safety.

I don't anticipate this system changing in WITP-AE.

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

In my early WITP play I used to try to be exact with my loadings.

But then I found that if I need to load a 12K point LCU that it was better if I used 24K worth of APs. If I was flush 36K works VERY well. It also lessons the problem of math errors.

Everybody off the ships in 1 turn is the ultimate goal, so the ships can run away to safety.

I don't anticipate this system changing in WITP-AE.

I learned this as well. It is good being the Allies! Never use one AK where six or seven will do fine.

[m10bob]

While this new ability to take minimum ships feature is a great thing, it is still a good idea to take more ships than needed. One good enemy sub will take out less of your people if they are spread over a larger group of ships.

[Andy Mac]

MY opinion AK's are like gold dust in AE and xAK's only slightly less so so using them for 'extra' transports is going to be tough.
 
LCU's use more supply
Construction uses more supply
Capacity is lower
Load/Unload times are slower.
 
For one of my early games when I play for real as the Japanese I am seriously considering a sink AK/xAK strategy as Japan send KB into the DEI no funny move bonus stuff just a straightforwad sink every AK I can get my hands on strategy.
 
Allied supply capability and logistics are a lot tighter especially in 42/early 43 every ship sank in the SRA is worthwhile - raiding supply hubs in the Bay of Bengal and off Australia are worthwhile if you sink even empty AK's.
 
Frankly sinking a modern AK is probably more use to the war effort than sinking a DD or Dutch/RN CL.
 
Logistics for the allies are going to be tighter.
 
And as for the Japanese AK's are worth something now.
 
The days of having massive stockpiles and forcing through an invasion force of 100 AK's and 20% losses being 'acceptable' are over.
 
Both sides will need every big AK they can get their hands on and the Allies especially on the long southern route.
 
Using AK's for mass invasions is going to cripple either side in the early years - keeping the logistics flowing is going to be the number 1 consideration for both sides.
 
As the allies KB raiding the convoy routes is going to force me to divert a lot more strength to cover them unless a Midway happens.
 
This is my opinion at any rate
Andy

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

MY opinion AK's are like gold dust in AE and xAK's only slightly less so so using them for 'extra' transports is going to be tough.

LCU's use more supply
Construction uses more supply
Capacity is lower
Load/Unload times are slower.

For one of my early games when I play for real as the Japanese I am seriously considering a sink AK/xAK strategy as Japan send KB into the DEI no funny move bonus stuff just a straightforwad sink every AK I can get my hands on strategy.

Allied supply capability and logistics are a lot tighter especially in 42/early 43 every ship sank in the SRA is worthwhile - raiding supply hubs in the Bay of Bengal and off Australia are worthwhile if you sink even empty AK's.

Frankly sinking a modern AK is probably more use to the war effort than sinking a DD or Dutch/RN CL.

Logistics for the allies are going to be tighter.

And as for the Japanese AK's are worth something now.

The days of having massive stockpiles and forcing through an invasion force of 100 AK's and 20% losses being 'acceptable' are over.

Both sides will need every big AK they can get their hands on and the Allies especially on the long southern route.

Using AK's for mass invasions is going to cripple either side in the early years - keeping the logistics flowing is going to be the number 1 consideration for both sides.

As the allies KB raiding the convoy routes is going to force me to divert a lot more strength to cover them unless a Midway happens.

This is my opinion at any rate
Andy

My only concern with your "sink AK/xAK strategy" is if that is a real life possiblility or one created by the number of AKs that the game provides. If IRL that policy was followed, couldn't the allies bring more AKs to the Pacific that won't be able to be brought in to the game so you are playing the "game" instead of following a viable RL alternative.

[Flying Tiger]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Hello. I have the lastest 1.8.0.6 patch but the screens that Don Bowen and m10bob show very different options than I have on my WitP. For instance, I have only these ways to attack: defense, bombardment and shock. I am curious if they are beta testing for Admiral's Edition? So guys please get back to me.

Thank you for your time and God Bless!

Gday Footslogger. Looks like you got yourself caught in the crossfire here. Sorry about that.

The simple explanation to your confusion is that you have loaded and are playing the 'original' "War in the Pacific" (WitP). These guys are showing you screenshots from the as yet unreleased "War in the Pacific - Admirals Edition". It is a totally reworked version of the game, with many extensive changes, and many more minor changes (hey Don, do i get commission for this stuff??). Keep watching this forum and when it is finally released to the public you will no doubt hear about it. But... it is effectively a new game, so you will need to shell out more $$$$ for it. And by the way, dont hold your breath for its release - we have all been waiting a year already!!

Cheers. And welcome to the wonderful world of WitP.

FT

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

MY opinion AK's are like gold dust in AE and xAK's only slightly less so so using them for 'extra' transports is going to be tough.

LCU's use more supply
Construction uses more supply
Capacity is lower
Load/Unload times are slower.

For one of my early games when I play for real as the Japanese I am seriously considering a sink AK/xAK strategy as Japan send KB into the DEI no funny move bonus stuff just a straightforwad sink every AK I can get my hands on strategy.

Allied supply capability and logistics are a lot tighter especially in 42/early 43 every ship sank in the SRA is worthwhile - raiding supply hubs in the Bay of Bengal and off Australia are worthwhile if you sink even empty AK's.

Frankly sinking a modern AK is probably more use to the war effort than sinking a DD or Dutch/RN CL.

Logistics for the allies are going to be tighter.

And as for the Japanese AK's are worth something now.

The days of having massive stockpiles and forcing through an invasion force of 100 AK's and 20% losses being 'acceptable' are over.

Both sides will need every big AK they can get their hands on and the Allies especially on the long southern route.

Using AK's for mass invasions is going to cripple either side in the early years - keeping the logistics flowing is going to be the number 1 consideration for both sides.

As the allies KB raiding the convoy routes is going to force me to divert a lot more strength to cover them unless a Midway happens.

This is my opinion at any rate
Andy

My only concern with your "sink AK/xAK strategy" is if that is a real life possiblility or one created by the number of AKs that the game provides. If IRL that policy was followed, couldn't the allies bring more AKs to the Pacific that won't be able to be brought in to the game so you are playing the "game" instead of following a viable RL alternative.

IRL the Allies were CRITICALLY short of shipping through mid-43. IIRC, there was a major flap that escalated all the way up to the Joint Chiefs because there were 20 ships at Noumea waiting for weeks to unload; since CinCPac was seen (at least by the European Theater planners) to be using them for floating warehouses (or tolerating an incompetent logistics staff) there was an effort to reallocate shipping to provide more for Europe. Got ugly

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: pompack

IRL the Allies were CRITICALLY short of shipping through mid-43. IIRC, there was a major flap that escalated all the way up to the Joint Chiefs because there were 20 ships at Noumea waiting for weeks to unload; since CinCPac was seen (at least by the European Theater planners) to be using them for floating warehouses (or tolerating an incompetent logistics staff) there was an effort to reallocate shipping to provide more for Europe. Got ugly

This episode was illustrated in the James Cagney as Bull Halsey movie The Gallant Hours. The movie had a message to Halsey complaining of ships taking (IIRC) more than 2 weeks to unload whereas in San Francisco they would take three days to unload. He popped off a fiery reply that if he had the same port equipment as San Francisco the ships would be unloaded in two days! Then he thought better of it and sent a calmer reply.

[m10bob]

IIRC the excellent book SEMPER FI, MAC relates the longshoremen were on strike when the 2nd Marine Div arrived at NZ so the gyrenes unloaded their own ships.(Incredible that the unions would strike during wartime, which of course they did, often, but considering NZ was pretty much at the "front lines" in '42 !.....