This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
I saw the AI sailing CVTF's north of Hawaii then down into the shipping lanes.
Same here; the AI sent Hiyo, two CA's and a couple of DD's NE of Pearl Harbor in mid-42. They didn't make it back.
I am having trouble keeping either fuel or supplies at Perth. I've got a 35k fuel TF running to and from Columbo to Perth, and the fuel just evaporates from the base. Same with supply; I've brought 75k to Perth and it vanishes in a few days. It really looks like that the southern Australian bases west of Melbourne are draining Perth, but it's hard to nail down; it also looks like Melbourne is getting some fuel/supply as well.
I send big convoys to big ports (Pearl, Auckland, Perth, Colombo). Pearl supplies the Central Pacific, Auckland supplies the South Pacific, Perth & Colombo take care of the West side of the map - with smaller ships/convoys.
As I said, to each his own. NZ is a long, long way from the Solomons and NG.
I send big convoys to big ports (Pearl, Auckland, Perth, Colombo). Pearl supplies the Central Pacific, Auckland supplies the South Pacific, Perth & Colombo take care of the West side of the map - with smaller ships/convoys.
As I said, to each his own. NZ is a long, long way from the Solomons and NG.
Auckland is much closer to both than SF. Distance used to be the main determining factor in WitP. Now we also have to consider the time it takes to unload while in harm's way. Big ships are designed to travel between big ports. The little short legged cargo ships are designed for local operations. Once they're all in their proper places a steady flow can be maintained.
I am having trouble keeping either fuel or supplies at Perth. I've got a 35k fuel TF running to and from Columbo to Perth, and the fuel just evaporates from the base. Same with supply; I've brought 75k to Perth and it vanishes in a few days. It really looks like that the southern Australian bases west of Melbourne are draining Perth, but it's hard to nail down; it also looks like Melbourne is getting some fuel/supply as well.
That stinks. This must be a change that came with one of the patches. I've never had this problem. I guess that means Hobart is the only place to go.
The Japs can have OZ if they want it. Sure would be nice to be able to turn off the useless factories.
You have to adjust the "supply required" on the Base Screen. You can dump 100,000 supply in Perth, and if the supply required, which is calculated by the needs of the land and air units based there, is small then when the base has 3x that required level, the excess will flow to the largest port in the link. So, if Perth has 3,000 supply required, 9,000 will stay in Perth and 91,000 will flow to Sydney, the largest port in circut. From Sydney, when it has 3x its supply required, it will flow to all the other bases around it and indeed through most of Australia that is linked by rail until they all have 3x required. After that, any excess will just pool in Syden. (Non rail linked bases behave a little differently, and the supply buildup is slow, note Darwin) If you increase the "supply required" at Perth to + 25,000 (the highest level) then Perth's supply required will jump from 3,000 to 28,000. The of the same 100,000 supply dumped in the port, 84,000 will stay and 16,000 will flow out. After patch 3, you have to adjust the "supply required" on all the bases where you want to accumulate supply or it will just flow out. Fuel has the same 3x limit, but you cannot adjust the "fuel required" with a slider. The only way to impact "fuel required" is to has ships in port.
I detailed some of this in an early posting on page 2 of this thread. Hopes this helps.
Auckland is much closer to both than SF. Distance used to be the main determining factor in WitP. Now we also have to consider the time it takes to unload while in harm's way. Big ships are designed to travel between big ports. The little short legged cargo ships are designed for local operations. Once they're all in their proper places a steady flow can be maintained.
Sydney is big enough.
A steady flow can only be maintained so long as the cargo ships remain untorpedoed. I prefer not to give the IJN subs an extra ten days or more, going and coming from NZ. To each his own.
I detailed some of this in an early posting on page 2 of this thread. Hopes this helps.
It did help me. I had not worried about ships in port as a predictor of fuel usage. Since WITP we've all gotten used to the idea that LCUs in a base hex use supplies (men eat), but I had never tracked passive fuel usage. As you say, there's no clicker to easily adjust the outflow.
To be hyper-anally-retentive, ships disbanded shouldn't use much or any fuel, at least in a big port with naval piers. They'd be cold-iron, using pier-side steam and/or shore power pulled off the base or city power grid. If they were on internal power, their fuel use would still be confined to only making auxiliary steam to generate electricity; propulsion is where heavy fuel use is incurred.
Still, after Patch 3 I need to do a lot more watching of where I've parked unneeded ships versus how difficult it is to get fuel to that hex. It's just another level of trade-off analysis to consider. Holding big, unused fleet assets in useful forward locations might be counter-productive if the next use for them is 3-4 months away.
Good reading, since this is a major issue facing one of my pbem games that has stalled. Treznor got sooo lucky with his subs...or I was sooo stupid with my convoys, but he had continiously sank my TK's comming off the WC for months. I agree with Qball on TK TF's, the smaller the better but you still should have escort for them over any AK TF's. Keep us updated Misconduct if you try using CS convoys and how they work out for you...please [:)]
Well im glad I asked this question because i'm always thinking up weird topics for discussion to get insight in some of the veterans, So far my only problem with the AI has been canton, I dropped a Squadron of P40s there and nothing else since I moved the base to christmas island and the KB seems to enjoy running over to canton to bomb the field with predictable loses.
I did however Start a semi offense before my carrier refit of 4/42 and took Guadalcanal, Nindi, Efate and build them up massing all my engineers till the AF and ports were fully build, now I have complete air cover over my trade routes and Fuel/supplies are moving pretty protected right now except for few annoying subs, however daily patrols by ASW has been keeping them at bay even though only 2 subs sunk were from british destroyers in DEI.
So far I have not had 1 succesful attack on subs for americans, I have yorktown and hornet out of repairs and sent to canton area to start ASW'ing hopefully to combat these annoying little buggers. So far my best success has been 2 carriers with 6 destroyers entirely on ASW, behind the lines.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
Well im glad I asked this question because i'm always thinking up weird topics for discussion to get insight in some of the veterans, So far my only problem with the AI has been canton, I dropped a Squadron of P40s there and nothing else since I moved the base to christmas island and the KB seems to enjoy running over to canton to bomb the field with predictable loses.
I did however Start a semi offense before my carrier refit of 4/42 and took Guadalcanal, Nindi, Efate and build them up massing all my engineers till the AF and ports were fully build, now I have complete air cover over my trade routes and Fuel/supplies are moving pretty protected right now except for few annoying subs, however daily patrols by ASW has been keeping them at bay even though only 2 subs sunk were from british destroyers in DEI.
So far I have not had 1 succesful attack on subs for americans, I have yorktown and hornet out of repairs and sent to canton area to start ASW'ing hopefully to combat these annoying little buggers. So far my best success has been 2 carriers with 6 destroyers entirely on ASW, behind the lines.
I was thinking about having a hunter/killer (well, hunter/wounder) group made up of DDs and a CS or AV. But I am worried that I would just lose the CS/AV. Aren't you worried about losing a CV to one of the subs you are hunting?
Right now no i'm not, right now I have Each carrier with 6 destroyers, and CA. Escorting also is 4 destroyers on ASW, I figure if I can get a bomb hit the sub won't submerge and have to duel the destroyers, so far it happened once and it was successful.
Yeah It ties up destroyers, however I have had no luck in 4 months having 4 destroyers together with the best commander because the crew skill rating is so low its pointless to waste all that fuel on nothing.
Even if I do lose a CV to a sub then its just part of war, but I mean what other options do I have, I don't want to risk the carriers until Hellcats come, and so far they are helping keep my supply lines clean of annoying subs.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
I just thought of something, if you are worried about a Rogue IJN cruiser group catching your carrier, you can always have 2 CV's together, one for naval attack, and the other ASW to screen the area, I am a fan of having one or the other not a mix, it makes the carrier group to weak.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
Another trick to make the small ports more useful for refuelling: If a transport TF with a fuel loaded tanker is docked at a port (unloading or not), it works like a replenishment TF with an AO: Another TF in the hex can "refuel at sea", and it will do so from the cargo of the docked tanker. This helps a lot - you don't use up the fuel already unloaded, and the tanker doesn't need to unload everything.
You can even use a tanker from the TF itself: Stop at a port, detach the tanker, dock it, refuel the rest of the TF, then reattach the tanker or leave it behind.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)
So far my fuel has been restored in the Southwest Pacific area, Local trips to Perth worked, I dropped off 100k in fuel and all of it transfered to Sydney which is good because most of my DD's and CA's are getting upgraded there, Suva has 150k in fuel and 100k in supplies from my first shipment and another 50k in fuel/25k in suppplies heading there.
I figured out what the "minimum refueling" means and that pretty much stopped all my ships from murdering my fuel supply at Suva.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
Auckland is much closer to both than SF. Distance used to be the main determining factor in WitP. Now we also have to consider the time it takes to unload while in harm's way. Big ships are designed to travel between big ports. The little short legged cargo ships are designed for local operations. Once they're all in their proper places a steady flow can be maintained.
Sydney is big enough.
A steady flow can only be maintained so long as the cargo ships remain untorpedoed. I prefer not to give the IJN subs an extra ten days or more, going and coming from NZ. To each his own.
Aye, Sydney would make Auckland a backwater again if fuel didn't get gobbled up by Australia's unneeded industry. Generally islands make better hub centers because what you drop there stays there until it gets picked up. That's why I stated the two reasons why I consider Auckland much more valuable in AE compared to the original game. Port size restrictions and industry eating fuel in Oz.
Maybe I've just been lucky but subs haven't been a problem once through the gauntlet off the West Coast. Plenty of sub activity around Sydney as well. Not so much between (East of) Pago Pago & NZ. If the subs change their tactics I'll change mine.
Fuel and supply should never be a problem for the allied player in a hub and spoke defensive network.
Use excess AK types to move fuel since you have a depleted tanker force. Your loss is good example for breaking up those convoys and not concentrating TK's in any one task force.
1. use all fuel and supply from Capetown to Oz.
2. Abadan to Karachi
3. Bombay to Celyon
4. Celyon to any other base in India.
5. USA to PH and Alaska
6. USA to supply hubs SW of PH (Christmas, cook isl, samoa, etc)
7. USA to military hub(s) in SW Pac (player choice - propbably the same as your supply hubs
You will need to coordinate bases with your overall defensive posturing in the early months. All islands in SW pac are not created equal. You need to choose bases that can become level 9 bases so you can unlimited stockpile. FYI, expect a seasoned Jap player to find your hubs before too long...
USE TK / AKL with <10K endurance on short routes and others on long routes
Be Mindful of the port size you are sending to and send convoy sizes in conjunction with that
