KB Fuel Level Too High - Discuss

[morganbj]

In my current game, the KB pounded me until December 12 from three hexes away.  On that date, it hit me twice more on the way out.  That, I think, is excessive.

The point is that with the dynamics of the game systems, there was very little that I could do, except sacrifce a few DDs and PTs with hopes of getting a few lucky hits on the carriers.  (I did, too.)  The planes just sat there and got creamed, day after day.  No one, not even CPT Rafe McCawley (a.k.a. Ben Affleck in that movie the name of which one should not speak), bothered to take off on a retaliatory mission.  It might have been different if I had moved my to CAGs to close to Pearl, but I tried to stay clear of the Death Star.  Of course, had I tried to support Pearl, I might have lost them too.

[88l71]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

In my current game, the KB pounded me until December 12 from three hexes away.  On that date, it hit me twice more on the way out.  That, I think, is excessive.

The point is that with the dynamics of the game systems, there was very little that I could do, except sacrifce a few DDs and PTs with hopes of getting a few licky hits on the carriers.  (I did, too.)  The planes just sat there and got creamed, day after day.  No one, not even CPT Rafe McCawley (a.k.a. Ben Affleck in that movie the name of which one should not speak), bothered to take off on a retaliatory mission.  It might have been different if I had moved my to CAGs to close to Pearl, but I tried to stay clear of the Death Star.  Of course, had I tried to support Pearl, I might have lost them too.

I don't care about the above P-40 flying captain, but if you get Kate Beckinsdale to show up, let me know.

[WingedIncubus]

What worries me is the KB being albe to leave, then return to PH a few days later to strike again.

Not saying it would be a flying success for Japan since all the Dec 7 bonuses are gone, but the mere option to be able to go back and forth without refueling at a base seems odd.

[herwin]

It looks like gunships can go carrier hunting successfully. The KB had a very light screen. [;)]

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

It looks like gunships can go carrier hunting successfully. The KB had a very light screen. [;)]

But the thing is, ideally the surface fleet must approach the carriers fast either at night or while the CAGs are busy elsewhere. Carriers spotting a SCTF from a far with CAGs in its deck can spell disaster for the battleships.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

yes it does.
Guad scenario has carrier TF's starting at 50% capacity

Is this after a "magic move" Nik?

no magic move

[Dili]

You can set up partial fuel/endurance values for ships in the editor, yes.

You cannot set up a tanker with a partial fuel load however - which is what would be needed here.

Thanks

[bradfordkay]

bklooste wrote: "Ok Some comments to stay at Pearl a week would not add any fuel only if they were moving around Pearl"


Actually, to stay off Pearl for a week of air operations would burn naval fuel. Your ships are not drifting with their engines off, they are continuing to sail in order to maintain formation, steerage and at a sufficient speed to perform launching operations. I understand that at least some of the ships were refueled from the tankers before the strike was launched (a day, two days before?). This fuel should be removed from the replenishment TF in order to maintain historical accuracy.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

bklooste wrote: "Ok Some comments to stay at Pearl a week would not add any fuel only if they were moving around Pearl"


Actually, to stay off Pearl for a week of air operations would burn naval fuel. Your ships are not drifting with their engines off, they are continuing to sail in order to maintain formation, steerage and at a sufficient speed to perform launching operations. I understand that at least some of the ships were refueled from the tankers before the strike was launched (a day, two days before?). This fuel should be removed from the replenishment TF in order to maintain historical accuracy.

Everyone except the Kaga and Sho/Zui were topped up before the approach run. The real problem was having enough fuel for 2 days at 24 knots (about 2800 nm of endurance) followed by 3300 miles cruising home (3300+ nm of endurance), given that there was a real chance the replen TF might not be there to top off the tanks afterwards. (The replen TF was left with two DDs to protect it in a big ocean with a couple of USN CVTFs on the loose).

[Brady]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

bklooste wrote: "Ok Some comments to stay at Pearl a week would not add any fuel only if they were moving around Pearl"


Actually, to stay off Pearl for a week of air operations would burn naval fuel. Your ships are not drifting with their engines off, they are continuing to sail in order to maintain formation, steerage and at a sufficient speed to perform launching operations. I understand that at least some of the ships were refueled from the tankers before the strike was launched (a day, two days before?). This fuel should be removed from the replenishment TF in order to maintain historical accuracy.

Aparently only about 10,000 tons of the Tankers 80,000 ton capacity had be taken from them.

[juliet7bravo]

Doesn't matter how much fuel was aboard the tankers or the capital ships, the problem was getting it to the destroyers in a timely manner, under combat conditions. 

Real life isn't a computer game.  In the game, unlike real life, refueling isn't interrupted by weather/sea state, enemy attack, or breaking hoses.  Remaining on station would have required extended refueling of the DDs, in lousy weather, at reduced speed, maintaining a steady course, in enemy waters, a long way from home or support, and being unable to conduct air ops.  Then starting the process all over again.  Doing so would have been fool hardy.  Naguma wasn't a fool.  The same IJN junior staffers kibitzing to remain on station had no responsibility for the decision, easy to talk smack from the sidelines.  More or less the same bunch whose poor advice and excessive confidence contributed greatly to the Japanese debacle at Midway.  What'd one of them say; "We goofed"?  That was helpful.  Easy for us to say in hindsight that Naguma coulda, woulda, shoulda, remained on station.  Naguma didn't have the benefit of historical knowledge available to him that we do.

The game engine is designed to simulate theatre-wide warfare, not task force operations.  If the AI/mechanics allows the Death Star to camp at PH for an extended period...oh well, you wanted "ahistorical", you got it, till your back teeth click.  Between humans, a house rule would cover that eventuality.

[Mynok]

Not knowing where the US CVs were seems the primary consideration for withdrawing.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Brady

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

bklooste wrote: "Ok Some comments to stay at Pearl a week would not add any fuel only if they were moving around Pearl"


Actually, to stay off Pearl for a week of air operations would burn naval fuel. Your ships are not drifting with their engines off, they are continuing to sail in order to maintain formation, steerage and at a sufficient speed to perform launching operations. I understand that at least some of the ships were refueled from the tankers before the strike was launched (a day, two days before?). This fuel should be removed from the replenishment TF in order to maintain historical accuracy.

Aparently only about 10,000 tons of the Tankers 80,000 ton capacity had be taken from them.

Then they should only have about 70,000 of their 80,000 ton capacity on board at game start.

[Scott_USN]

ORIGINAL: 88l71

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

In my current game, the KB pounded me until December 12 from three hexes away.  On that date, it hit me twice more on the way out.  That, I think, is excessive.

The point is that with the dynamics of the game systems, there was very little that I could do, except sacrifce a few DDs and PTs with hopes of getting a few licky hits on the carriers.  (I did, too.)  The planes just sat there and got creamed, day after day.  No one, not even CPT Rafe McCawley (a.k.a. Ben Affleck in that movie the name of which one should not speak), bothered to take off on a retaliatory mission.  It might have been different if I had moved my to CAGs to close to Pearl, but I tried to stay clear of the Death Star.  Of course, had I tried to support Pearl, I might have lost them too.

I don't care about the above P-40 flying captain, but if you get Kate Beckinsdale to show up, let me know.

I am in on that I will shoot you down for that!

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Brady

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

bklooste wrote: "Ok Some comments to stay at Pearl a week would not add any fuel only if they were moving around Pearl"


Actually, to stay off Pearl for a week of air operations would burn naval fuel. Your ships are not drifting with their engines off, they are continuing to sail in order to maintain formation, steerage and at a sufficient speed to perform launching operations. I understand that at least some of the ships were refueled from the tankers before the strike was launched (a day, two days before?). This fuel should be removed from the replenishment TF in order to maintain historical accuracy.

Aparently only about 10,000 tons of the Tankers 80,000 ton capacity had be taken from them.

About 13000+ tons of fuel transferred prior to the attack run, 13500 afterwards, refueling during and after the return trip was about 34000 tons, total fuel used was about 64000 tons. Kaga, Zuikaku, and Shokaku made the trip without refuelling; the rest refuelled on a regular basis. Fleet bunkerage capacity was 56000+ tons, with another 3000 tons of fuel in drums etc. If Halsey had caught the replen TF on the 7th, there was enough fuel left to make Truk if the destroyers were refuelled from the heavy ships (an ad-hoc manoeuvre in the IJN). The destroyers used 56% of their fuel bunkerage and the cruisers, Akagi, Soryu, and Hiryu used about 35% of their fuel bunkerage for the attack run.

[spence]

uote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

bklooste wrote: "Ok Some comments to stay at Pearl a week would not add any fuel only if they were moving around Pearl"


Actually, to stay off Pearl for a week of air operations would burn naval fuel. Your ships are not drifting with their engines off, they are continuing to sail in order to maintain formation, steerage and at a sufficient speed to perform launching operations. I understand that at least some of the ships were refueled from the tankers before the strike was launched (a day, two days before?). This fuel should be removed from the replenishment TF in order to maintain historical accuracy.



Aparently only about 10,000 tons of the Tankers 80,000 ton capacity had be taken from them.



Then they should only have about 70,000 of their 80,000 ton capacity on board at game start.

__________

Unsubstantiated assertions are not quite so apparent to many.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: spence

uote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

bklooste wrote: "Ok Some comments to stay at Pearl a week would not add any fuel only if they were moving around Pearl"


Actually, to stay off Pearl for a week of air operations would burn naval fuel. Your ships are not drifting with their engines off, they are continuing to sail in order to maintain formation, steerage and at a sufficient speed to perform launching operations. I understand that at least some of the ships were refueled from the tankers before the strike was launched (a day, two days before?). This fuel should be removed from the replenishment TF in order to maintain historical accuracy.



Aparently only about 10,000 tons of the Tankers 80,000 ton capacity had be taken from them.



Then they should only have about 70,000 of their 80,000 ton capacity on board at game start.

__________

Unsubstantiated assertions are not quite so apparent to many.

Come again? Do you want to see the spreadsheet analysis? Sources include Conways and various war diaries.

[treespider]

Actually there would be a relatively simple way to mod this....with one thing having to be accepted by the players...and it could only be used in PBeM.


The editor allows the elimination of the Magic Move.

Simply eliminate Magic Moves for all of the Japanese TF using the scenario editor.

Reset the scenario start to IIRC November 26 or 29th the date KB departs from anchorage...

Allied player not allowed to attack Japanese TFs unless they appear within 5 hexes of Phillippines, DEI base or Malaya Coast. Force Z starts at Singapore. Some of the other Allied TF would have to be repositioned as well. No Allied moves allowed outside of China....other than the TF that are currently enroute to destination (which would have slightly different AT-start positions).

Japanese units not allowed to enter Thailand or HK until Dec 7th.

Only drawback is their is no night phase on Dec 7th.

In stock/CHS I tried this and the movement happened perfectly with the exception of the Magic Move. The Japanese required refueling IIRC about three times.

Now that the Magic Move has been eliminated ...this becomes a viable Mod scenario...with the acceptance that Dec 7th will be slightly abbreviated.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: spence
Unsubstantiated assertions are not quite so apparent to many.

Come again? Do you want to see the spreadsheet analysis? Sources include Conways and various war diaries.

I think he was talking about Brady's assertions. [;)]

[Mark Weston]

herwin's detailed analysis is really interesting, especially to someone like me who doesn't have the detailed historical background. But I did notice that a lot of the limitations he mentioned are not physical but doctrinal; they arise from assumptions about the safety-margins needed in terms of time, speed, distance etc. If you build in enough safety-margins that your operational goal becomes logistically impossible, then obviously you re-examine them and decide where you can accept greater risk in order to make the logistics work. Then you evaluate the risks and decide whether they're justified by the reward.

For example, the Japanese could push the replenishment group closer to PH (risking detection but counting on the IJN's first airfield strikes to reduce the likelihood of attack). Or they could rotate half their destroyers out to refuel during each day's air ops (because a carrier running at 25+ knots really is close to an impossible shot for any but the luckiest submerged sub).

The game puts the player in the (obviously unhistorical) position of being Supreme Commander of Everything. But given that, I really think it's the player's right to decide to accept higher risks not taken by his historical counter-parts in order to generate greater returns. The game should limit actions that were physically impossible or outside the capability of the personel, but shouldn't straitjacket the player with someone else's risk/benefit calculations.

And it's not as if a sustained attack on PH should make the game unplayable for the allied side. Every day the Japanese player hangs around atriting his air group on the PH defences he's giving the allied player chances to pull off a Midway six months early.