What to Do With All Those Darn Tenders!

[Marty A]

Repairs at forward areas is not what i am saying not to do. better to do with naval support. ships can be sunk naval support can not. tenders moving shells to ships can be sunk naval support can not. best way to protect convoy is take unlikely routes. take routes where you can cover with air and guess what? that is where submarines are! take routes that are 10 hex off or more these 'usual' routes and you not need air to cover because submarine in this area rare if ever. japan should not use floats for asw anyway. japan best asw aircraft is lilly which can not use av for. i would guess that ally best asw aircraft is also not a float plane so again av not good. avd is good for forward search base for a few turns little else [other than as a normal dd].

[John Lansford]

I agree that Marty has it all wrong about auxiliary ships.  I can greatly extend the range of both my subs and light surface forces by deploying an AS and an AD as close to the front as possible, usually Darwin, Rossel Island, one of the atolls just south of Tarawa, or Midway.  The subs can rearm and refuel at these bases instead of going all the way to Brisbane or Pearl, which extends their range quite a bit.  The same goes for DD's as long as you've got decent air cover over the port since LBA goes after surface ships fairly heavily.
 
AR's work best in medium/large ports without shipyards; that way they can speed up general repairs and repair 5 or less major damage all by themselves.  That takes some load off the shipyards and keeps your ships in better shape for a longer period of time.
 
I use AG's as cargo ships; I've yet to see much use for them since even small ports can rearm small surface ships.  AE and AD types can rearm nearly every warship depending on their cargo capacity, and being able to rearm a battlegroup at Efate instead of Suva is the difference in having them off station for nearly a week.  AO's and tankers at small ports function the same way in respect to refueling.

[Marty A]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I agree that Marty has it all wrong about auxiliary ships.  I can greatly extend the range of both my subs and light surface forces by deploying an AS and an AD as close to the front as possible, usually Darwin, Rossel Island, one of the atolls just south of Tarawa, or Midway.  The subs can rearm and refuel at these bases instead of going all the way to Brisbane or Pearl, which extends their range quite a bit.  The same goes for DD's as long as you've got decent air cover over the port since LBA goes after surface ships fairly heavily.

AR's work best in medium/large ports without shipyards; that way they can speed up general repairs and repair 5 or less major damage all by themselves.  That takes some load off the shipyards and keeps your ships in better shape for a longer period of time.

I use AG's as cargo ships; I've yet to see much use for them since even small ports can rearm small surface ships.  AE and AD types can rearm nearly every warship depending on their cargo capacity, and being able to rearm a battlegroup at Efate instead of Suva is the difference in having them off station for nearly a week.  AO's and tankers at small ports function the same way in respect to refueling.

I guess you not read what i say then. i say as/ad/ao are useful. it is others that are not. i say use ar in back port to make repair faster but not assign ship to ar repair. and i say use ag as supply ship [ak]. i say everything you just said yet you say i have it all wrong? only real different is ae. and i said ae 'maybe useful'.

[&:]

[John Lansford]

Putting an AR in the rear areas is a waste of time; put them in ports near where the fighting is and you'll increase the usefulness of your ships by reducing minor damage on them faster.  Your major shipyards are in the rear areas; why put an AR behind the lines where it's the same distance to a shipyard as it is to them?
 
Same with your AS, AE, AD ships; put them in ports close to where you expect fighting and all those ships will be able to stay on station longer, or get back to the fighting faster.  The AGP is a special case since it rearms PT boats, so use it the same as an AS/AD.
 
It's not that you think they are "somewhat useful" or "maybe useful"; they are all VERY useful if you put them further up near the fighting and not back in the rear areas.  For example, I've got an AS at Exmouth; now, instead of a sub having to travel to Perth, they can refuel/rearm at Exmouth and stay off of Java and Borneo that much longer.  That's an advantage over sending them all the way down to Perth.
 
Another example: I've got an AD at Dutch Harbor, with a cruiser/DD TF there too.  Now if a fight takes place nearby, the ships don't have to go back to Anchorage to rearm.  Again, an advantage.
 
Yet another example: I've got an AR at Darwin.  I send a cruiser TF at high speed to bombard Timor, they return to Darwin with 10 pts of minor damage.  The AR can repair all that faster than Darwin can by itself, plus 5 pts of major damage (often shows up on high speed runs).  Yet another advantage since major damage can only be fixed at Brisbane or Sydney (a long way off from Darwin).
 
Another example: I've got an AV at one of those little atolls south of Tarawa.  It's operating a dozen PBY's flying naval search, covering the approaches to both Baker and Tarawa.  That gives me an advance warning if ships approach from these directions towards my other bases, and alerts me when a TF is headed towards their bases as well.  A valuable BF would have to be moved to one of those atolls if I didn't use the AV, which I can pick up and move at a moment's notice if need be.
 
One more: I've got two AE's at Luganville.  My surface TF's can bombard Rabaul or Shortlands and return there instead of Noumea, knocking at least 4 days from their transit time.  Again, another example of an advantage the auxiliary gives me.

[Marty A]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Putting an AR in the rear areas is a waste of time; put them in ports near where the fighting is and you'll increase the usefulness of your ships by reducing minor damage on them faster.  Your major shipyards are in the rear areas; why put an AR behind the lines where it's the same distance to a shipyard as it is to them?

Naval support more useful close to fighting than ar is all other things being equal. ar ship can ONLY repair. naval support can repair ships and load shells and make loading unload at that port faster all at same time. not saying ar near front is not good. not saying ar in rear not good. i say i repair MORE damage FASTER with naval support than ar. clear? you play ai i play human. human not make same error ai make. put ar close to fight and human WILL sink. play ai like kissing sister to me. no excite: yawn.

Same with your AS, AE, AD ships; put them in ports close to where you expect fighting and all those ships will be able to stay on station longer, or get back to the fighting faster.  The AGP is a special case since it rearms PT boats, so use it the same as an AS/AD.

i say this exact thing. why you think i not? i say they useful.

For example

Another example:

Yet another example:

Another example: I've got an AV at one of those little atolls south of Tarawa.
One more:

i say av at atoll in front useful also i say EXACT thing and again you think i say no why? as for ae again NAVAL SUPPORT do same job FASTER and less risk and can do many other jobs while it does so.

ed. and what i mean by 'in the rear' may not be what you think i mean. when i say 'in the rear' i mean 15-20 hexes back. not mean in san francisco.

[John Lansford]

Naval support is harder to come by than an auxiliary ship, and unless you use one of the port support units (as Allied), you either have to move a HQ or a BF to the port you want to use as a rearming station.  As I said, BF's can be cumbersome to move around and you often need those elsewhere.  The ships are there, why not use them?  I don't like putting one of those valuable BF's at a small port that it may not even be able to unload at.

[xj900uk]

Just be careful you don't overextend your auxiliries/tenders & put them where the enemy can do a fast hit&run on them (either from sea or air)...

[wwengr]

Guys, let's not get personal about this. My post was actually about the potential usefulness of each tender. The relative usefulness varies with style of play and philosophy. As an Allied player, I just love AG's and I accept that there are people who find no use at all for them. That doesn't mean that I think that they are wrong. They just play differently than I do.

[xj900uk]

The dutch also have a number of small but useful seaplane tenders.  Ok so they can't oversee/service/maintain as many planes as the US ones (I think it is 6 but I might be wrong), however they are very useful if you can get them out of the DEI to send them to small islands or atolls where they can then hide away behind teh coral reefs and keep a small batch of PBY's operating as your eyes and ears.  Far better and quicker than landing a BF or engineering unit onto an otherwise deserted place and building it up.  Also any base could in theory be spotted by the IJN's own search or recce planes, but a seaplane tender (particularly a small easy-to-hide one) may not...

[Marty A]

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

The dutch also have a number of small but useful seaplane tenders.  Ok so they can't oversee/service/maintain as many planes as the US ones (I think it is 6 but I might be wrong), however they are very useful if you can get them out of the DEI to send them to small islands or atolls where they can then hide away behind teh coral reefs and keep a small batch of PBY's operating as your eyes and ears.  Far better and quicker than landing a BF or engineering unit onto an otherwise deserted place and building it up.  Also any base could in theory be spotted by the IJN's own search or recce planes, but a seaplane tender (particularly a small easy-to-hide one) may not...

I find the reverse to be true. better to fly in a fragment of a base force [6 or 8 av support squads] and operate. the tender if spotted will be sunk. all that will be tied down of japan is 1 air strike. a base fragment requires him to send troops eating supplies and fuel for the move plus maybe makes a target for your sub or airplanes. plus the tender when sunk is gone where a fragment can be replaced.

[John Lansford]

If you disband the seaplane tender at the base, it's more difficult to be spotted, much less get hit and/or sunk.  Again, I find using land units just to operate seaplanes at forward bases a waste of a valuable asset (the BF itself), of which I've never got enough of anyway.  I've got plenty of AV-type ships, they're more mobile and flexible, so why not use them?

[Marty A]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If you disband the seaplane tender at the base, it's more difficult to be spotted, much less get hit and/or sunk.  Again, I find using land units just to operate seaplanes at forward bases a waste of a valuable asset (the BF itself), of which I've never got enough of anyway.  I've got plenty of AV-type ships, they're more mobile and flexible, so why not use them?

I repeat. fly in a fragment [just 6-8 squads]. why not use the tender? as i already said sink and they gone forever. fragment is replaced in a few days. points is another case. a few squads from a fragment is 0 or maybe 1 point. a tender is 6 or more. tender can be spotted moving to its base. flying in fragment can not be spotted until they are in place. how many more reasons you want? avd can be used as a dd for example so they have purpose other than throw away at forward base. more reason? disbanding tender is no more hard to spot than fragment at base. more reason?

[wwengr]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If you disband the seaplane tender at the base, it's more difficult to be spotted, much less get hit and/or sunk.  Again, I find using land units just to operate seaplanes at forward bases a waste of a valuable asset (the BF itself), of which I've never got enough of anyway.  I've got plenty of AV-type ships, they're more mobile and flexible, so why not use them?

I repeat. fly in a fragment [just 6-8 squads]. why not use the tender? as i already said sink and they gone forever. fragment is replaced in a few days. points is another case. a few squads from a fragment is 0 or maybe 1 point. a tender is 6 or more. tender can be spotted moving to its base. flying in fragment can not be spotted until they are in place. how many more reasons you want? avd can be used as a dd for example so they have purpose other than throw away at forward base. more reason? disbanding tender is no more hard to spot than fragment at base. more reason?

Honestly, I find fragmenting for most purposes including this to be gamey. The game may allow it, but it was not intended as such. Units are functional becuase of the multpile elements that make them units. Land some mechanics and they won't be able to sustain operations. They need supply people to order, ship, receive parts; cooks to feed them; commanders to define the mission; armorers to maintain their weapons; medics to take care of medical needs; etc.

Just my opinion.

[Marty A]

Well to wonder is the mind of free peoples. i see no need to commit a 100 av base force to operate 3 seaplanes for 2 or 3 days out of friendly dot base near enemy water. if you think in real war they did not or would not do this then this is your right. i disagree.

[John Lansford]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

Well to wonder is the mind of free peoples. i see no need to commit a 100 av base force to operate 3 seaplanes for 2 or 3 days out of friendly dot base near enemy water. if you think in real war they did not or would not do this then this is your right. i disagree.

No they sent in a seaplane tender, like an AVD. For example, when the Japanese considered using French Frigate Shoals as a refueling base for a seaplane bombing attack on PH, they called it off when the sub spotted an AVD already there operating PBY's.

I agree it's gamey to fly in a small handful of aviation support squads from a BF and think that's all it takes to operate a seaplane or 4. Fuel, spare parts, tools, communication devices, supplies, etc, all flown in by transport? What if there's no airbase (level 0)? Use the AVD or other tender instead of fragmenting BF's into tiny little bits like that.

[Marty A]

japan does not have avd. your whole mind set appears to be only what ally can do with no regard to japan. in above example is case in point. japan had submarine designed to refuel airplanes for this exact purpose meaning fly in patrol airplanes for quick mission and leave. since game does not allow japan to do this next best thing is fly in supply and fragment - search - and leave. stop looking at game from green colored glasses.

[wwengr]

The Japanese CS type ships perform the function of the Allied AVD, but can do it better. The CS is much more versatile than an AVD and can act sort of like a CVE. As noted, there are also the submarines that launch float planes.

The Japanese player has AV's available.

• Akitsushima
• Kamoi
• Kamikawa Maru
• Kimikawa Maru
• Kunikawa Maru
• Kiyokawa Maru
• Sagara Maru
• Sanuki Maru

Additionally, any of the 26 Husimi Cargo xAK ships can convert to AV's if you choose.

[Marty A]

again, why would a person use a tender [av] when he can fly in [or fast transport] a base unit [or fragment of one]? japan has many av support companies [8 av] that are perfect for this. why give the ally points for sinking ships out on the fringes? and cs ships are far too valuable with your carrier forces to be wasted as seaplane bases. they can search while move not have to be parked at island.

[Bradley7735]

Thanks wwengr for these threads on auxilaries. Even though I've played the game from way back to Pacific War (did GG do the C64 south pacific game? loved that one too), I still find out stuff I didn't know, or stuff I knew and forgot.

[wwengr]

Japan's total aviation support squads is only a little more than the total number of land-based aircraft. Given, as others have noted,

• excess aviation support is required to keep all aircraft operational at base,
• the aircraft can change bases much faster than the aviation support, and
• the necesity to man bases for effective transfer of aircraft;

many players would choose to make efficient use of their AV ships. Doing so will:

• maximize the number of ready aircraft,
• minimize operational losses,
• help maintain a higher operational tempo, and
• make most effective use of air resources.

There are a variety of things you can do to utilize AV ships depending on style of play. I'm with John Lansford on this. When I set up a forward scouting base with an AV it is highly mobile. When the scouts spot a TF inbound and there are no firendly TF operations nearby, the AV can steam away whiile the aircraft transfer away. My experience in moving a base force in is that the squads do not last long if they are not properly supported. Additionally, the squads eat additional supplies.

The tactic of an AV operating at a remote base is a somewhat exceptional case. I use them to operate patrol planes in the sea lanes between the front and the Home Islands and I use them to operate remote patrols on the margins. More often than not, they augment operations at a base that has a base force and other assets performing missions including CAP. The principle purpose being to reduce the resource demand on the precious aviation support squads.

Regardless, judicious use of assets while keeping everything employed in a usefull manner is a key to success. Everything must serve a purpose.