IJ production mistakes

[bigred]

tm.asp?m=2354979&mpage=1&key=tranport%2 ... y&#2354979

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

A word to some of the newer players. Pay attention to this thread and other logistics threads like it.... Threads about winning CV battles and CAP settings etc might be sexy but logistics and the Japanese economy is where you are going to most probably lose your game in mid to late 42 or early 43.

If you marshall your logistics well you'll continue having more options and more success than a tactically effective player who doesn't have command of the economy and thus doesn't produce enough to be able to pull off truly interesting plans.

[bigred]

Funny how I am rereading my own thread. Thanks Damian. Issues arrise again .

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: bigred

Recap Please:
1. Resources and oil limits per base are 1m+(size does not matter even if my wife disagrees).[:'(]

No limits on storage at these, but there is a limit to how much oil can be produced. Not Resources.

Oil Production is limited to (Oil Centre * 1000) so 30 * 1000 gives the limit to oil storage of 30 000 ...

[edit] but just in case you might ask ... yes a port = 9 allows more ...
and another tidbit .. an Af + port size > 10 does nothing the port must be a 9.
tm.asp?m=2563870&mpage=1&key=sakhalin?

2. Processed fuel is limited by port/airbase storage ability(100x the port size).

Fuel over 1000 + ( ( port + airfield size ) * ( port + airfield size ) *2000 ) suffers spoilage.
Supplies over 5000 + ( ( port + airfield size ) * ( port + airfield size ) * 3000 ) suffers spoilage.

3. Base AKs carrying fuel in SRA and Refuel AKs in SRA only.

Unsure about the first bit of this ~ I don't. I tend not to refuel in the Home Is, if possible though.

[John 3rd]

BigRed--This is an RA Scenario isn't it? If so, I was thinking of Posting some Tracker Screenshots from my game (May 3, 1942) into this for some comparison. Is that a good idea or not?

[bigred]

tm.asp?m=2206904&mpage=3&key=tranport%2 ... y&#2212521

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Jim is quite correct! To my surprise, I found that the database record for Miri shows it as having 150 intact and 150 damaged oil centres, and also 150 intact and 150 damaged refineries. So there is an opportunity to enlarge the oil output by bases likely to be within the area of Japanese conquest.

Mike is also correct about the oil surplus, which will protract the period in which Japan's metropolitan refineries will continue to generate fuel to their full capacity. The table I posted near the start of this thread shows that, assuming zero daily oil production within the 'at start' Empire but efficient carriage of oil to where it's required, its stockpiled reserves of oil can sustain Empire refineries for 273 days. If the little oil the Empire produces is efficiently transported to its refineries, the additional oil produced extends the oil reach 'at start' to 347 days.

Intact capture of the SRA oil centres and refineries leads to the addition of 250 daily oil points in excess of the SRA's added refining capacity. Put differently, capture of these facilities intact does nothing to ease the shortage of oil for the Home Islands refineries unless you ship oil to these refineries rather than those in the SRA (primarily Palembang). So you still have to make a choice between refining close to your heavy industry production facilities or close to your oil production facilities. Either way, there will still be a need for substantial tanker shipments to Japan, whether of oil or fuel.

If the Japanese player captures all the SRA and Burmese refineries and oil centres intact, the additional oil generated still falls far short of what the aggregate refining capacity can process (about 32,900 oil points demanded by refineries per day against about 25,000 daily oil points to satisfy that demand). So the probability is that the oil stockpile will reduce to zero no matter how fortunate the Japanese player is in capturing facilities undamaged.

My calculations suggest that the amount of production that an intact Empire with captured SRA facilities can sustain without stockpiles is severely restricted. The maximum number of sustainable HI centres I calculate to be 5634, giving 11,268 HI points daily and the same amount of supply. With the addition of supply coming from light industry, aggregate sustainable supply production is around 20,968 per day. That is to be compared with a maximum daily supply output of Empire + SRA + Burma of about 27,170. I won't guarantee my figures are accurate but I think that is the best picture the Japanese player can be looking at once the hoarded stocks are gone. Much will therefore depend upon whether fuel and/or oil can be shipped to Japan in sufficient quantities to eke out her reserves of those commodities over several years. The Japanese player will also have to decide what compromise to make between the demands of industry for fuel and the demands of shipping, both military and merchant.

[bigred]

Yes John, please go ahead. It is june and I need to get a handle on my tanker transport routes. I suspect my problem arrises from my hawaiian attacks/fuel usage.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

BigRed--This is an RA Scenario isn't it? If so, I was thinking of Posting some Tracker Screenshots from my game (May 3, 1942) into this for some comparison. Is that a good idea or not?

[bigred]

tm.asp?m=2387305&mpage=1&key=tranport%2 ... t&#2388813

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Oops, I stand corrected. Naval support helps load cargo (resources and supply), not fuel and oil:

6.3.3.2.5 PORT LOAD RATE ADJUSTMENTS
Naval Support and Damage both affect a Port’s native ability to load a Task Force.
»» Naval Support. Naval Support may increase troop and cargo load
rates only. Naval Support increases the rate at which a given
ship can be loaded but cannot improve the total cargo handling
limitations of the port. Naval Support adds 10 points to the Troop
and Cargo load ability, for each Naval Support squad present.

[bigred]

This is the formula I was looking for to determine TF sizes. Erstad, I am very impressed.

ORIGINAL: erstad

Here's a little tool I put together to help model the number of cargo ships and TFs I need servicing a location. There are quite a few variables...

Basically, you fill in the characteristics of the source port (size, nav spt, in-hex resources[IN CENTERS], in-hex LI, and non-inhex resources[IN TOTAL POINTS] being transhipped ) and destination port (same except for LI), and distance between the two (round trip). You also select the size cargo hold you wlll be using and the speed. Lastly, you tell it how many days/turn are being run. All of these are in light grey.

The spreadsheet then figures out how long each TF takes to load, move to the destination, unload, and return, snapped to the turn cycle. Based on that, you find how many ships are needed. Further, based on the port limits it determines the maximum number of ships that can be in one TF, and thus how many TFs are needed (ships need to be evenly split between the TFs)

It errs on the side of using the merchies efficiently versus transporting all resources, so over time some excess will accumulate. It also ignores things like refueling ops, but that doesn't interfere with keeping the transports busy.

Two limits: It doesn't account for possible other traffic at the destination; and it doesn't determine if the number of TFs is viable (no two TFs can be loading on the same day)

There are two examples in the file, assuming two day turns. One is a Toyohara to Ominato run. Here only the resources generated in Toyohara are being transmitted. You need three TFs with 12 total ships (using the Aden class for this exercise). Then, I did a Fusan to Shimoneski run, assuming I wanted to get 22,500 excess resources out of China through this one port. Here, you need 3 TFs of 28 total ships. (This is an example of where it may not be a practical number of TFs, the loading is around 3 days (of 6 total) so more than one would be trying to load at the same time - the spreadsheet doesn't understand this)

In addition to figuring out # of ships/TFs, one can also do some what-if analysis of different routes (is it better to go a little further to hit that big port?) and port/naval support expansions. There's also some trades in terms of ship class; port size, naval support, and presence of resource centers all affect the item load rate and daily load rate in non-proportional ways.

There is both an OpenOffice and Excel version, I only tested the OpenOffice version.

Feedback/bug reports welcomed

The formulas are documented on the spreadsheet

Spreadsheet is in this thread
tm.asp?m=2198983&mpage=1&key=?

[bigred]

From vaned post 28

tm.asp?m=2231420&mpage=1&key=tranport%2 ... u&#2231697

ORIGINAL: vaned74

Here is the table in the excel file posted as an embed picture (if it works...)

[bigred]

Some quotes ring so true.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Sounds like KB will need to spend quite a lot of time tied to a pier if you don't want your fuel situation to go critical early.

In my first AE against P.Hauser I played the allies. My CV TFs operating in SoPAC ran out of fuel between Oz and NZ. I suspect the only reason I was not caught was the high operational rate of the Japs caused the IJN to run out also. Lifer may be able to comment on this as he took over after Hauser passed.
Seems to take about a month to recover defensively, 3 months offensively for the Japs. Kind of like binge drinking.

[bigred]

This thread points out the most efficent ships to use to haul resources.
tm.asp?m=2206904&mpage=4&key=tranport%2 ... cy%2Cnairu?

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: Woos

We can then relate these to the vessels' loading capacity and come up with 'ton-mile' figures that will indicate which are the most fuel-efficient load shifters.

Yokel,
have a look at WitpStaff's Ship Classes Tab which shows those efficiency figures for all the transport classes (AKs, APs and TKs). See also post 45 in the Japanese Merchant Marine thread. I never tested them though, just using data from the manual and whatever crumb I got from the developer's table

<slaps forehead in exasperation at own stupidity> Whoa, I'd already seen that post, and its significance hadn't sunk in. Beat me over the head long enough and eventually something percolates in... Thanks, Woos, that fuel efficiency data in Staff will save me a lot of time, and makes interesting reading in its own right.

The figures seem to bear out what one would expect: the relatively modern designs dating from the 'thirties generally offer significantly better fuel efficiency as well as better speed; at first sight these seem to be the obvious candidates for long haul work from the SRA. The whale factory ships offer fuel efficiency on a par with the US T2's, whilst on the cargo front the Standard A's lag a bit behind the efficiency of the Liberties, but are respectable (and faster).

The class data shown in Staff also brings home the point that at the war's start the Japanese enjoy the services of just 65 tankers, of which 31 are small vessels best suited to short haul work. In the first year of the war Japan adds just 7 additional tankships to the inventory, absent accelerations/conversions. How hard it's going to be to shift liquid cargo in the quantity required!

Going back to Zebedee's post #100, it had occurred to me that a capable convoy commodore (TF leader) might have an impact, as I believe I have detected them imparting extra distance travelled per turn. I use relatatively low aggression flag officers extensively as transport TF commanders for this reason. Another factor affecting TF performance is damage routinely sustained by its members: degradation in the performance of a single ship leading to loss of speed affects all ships in the TF unless the laggard is detached and allowed to proceed as a straggler. Add in any evasive routing around detected enemy submarines and Zebedee is quite correct to say that the best one can hope for is a ballpark figure for convoy performance. This means that a margin for delay must be built into planning of cycle times between two ports.

However, I suspect that the real bottleneck may prove to be berth availability in Home Islands ports. For example, you have a 20-ship convoy en route Hiroshima from the SRA, and a 10-ship inbound resources convoy from Dalian. Their aggregate tonnage is going to exceed Hiroshima's docking capacity, so something is going to have to give. I think this will be a conflict that rears its head quite frequently. Enjoy!

[bigred]

Global resource review for June.
1. Hi growing at a rate of 60000 per month.
2. Man growing at 100000 per month.
3. Arms growing at 10872 per month.
4. Veh growing at 1582 per month.
5. NBi growing at 8131 per month. This may be too much so I will pull up the build chart to see future needs on next post.
6. Merchant points growing at 7605 per month.

[bigred]

and a comparision from may to june.

[John 3rd]

Thanks for the reply. Will Post some stuff tomorrow.

Where are you at with your naval yards and construction there? Am curious to see what you've elected to do.

I haven't read the last few pages of this Thread so I'll stop commenting and get caught up before asking stupid questions!

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: bigred

Global resource review for June.
1. Hi growing at a rate of 60000 per month.
2. Man growing at 100000 per month.
3. Arms growing at 10872 per month.
4. Veh growing at 1582 per month.
5. NBi growing at 8131 per month. This may be too much so I will pull up the build chart to see future needs on next post.
6. Merchant points growing at 7605 per month.

Time to off some stuff ...

Turn off about 300 Arm factories and gain 300*6 = 1800 HI/day
Turn off (or accelerate some ships)300 Naval and gain 300*3 = 900 HI/Day
Turn off (or accelerate some ships)300 Merchant and gain 300*3 = 900 HI/Day

This HI you could either accumulate it (which is what I'd do) or decide to turn off some HI thereby reducing your resource and oil requirements. The latter would be about 3600/2 = 1300 HI turn off; but remember this impacts supply too ...

Base Oil is always going to slowly reduce in this mod iirc - but at this rate you could play until 1945 and beyond

[bigred]

At the beginning of my game I was slow to make any changes to production because I hear stories of economy colapse. So i want to get my feet wet. Slow and easy.. If I have too I will fight w/ what history gave me(RA70 style).

One of the air issues that bothered me was the aboundance of army Ki27 sqns for front line duty. To improve this situation I increase oscar production from beginning 0 to about 90 frames per month. See Screen shot.

But now I see these factories as my main line army fighter factories. I was rereading my/our thread(I think of this as a newbie thread for all us green players loking to survive against our 5 star foe) and am thinking about future fighter research and production.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: Historiker

how far does it work? just one ahead, or can you walk through the upgrade path?

Walk through ... makes R&D for distant models more accessible(read easier to get early),as long as they're along the upgrade path and the initial factories are fully repaired.

If stock (not this game Big Red is playing);
I'd R&D A6M3's until repaired then switch these up to A6M5b/c's (not sure the M8 is better) and probably try to get these a year or more early. Similar with the later Oscars and a few other models that come to mind.

Anyway, anything that I want to R&D that is along the upgrade path, I wouldn't start with the plane factory I want to R&D; I'd build the model that is nearest to the current game date (and is maybe already available), then upgrade these fully repaired factories to fully repaired R&D status...

Obviously with start-up models, you still need to R&D that first model before you can continue.

Nice!

As this will only have its full effect in late 43 to mid 44, it shouldn't matter that much if the opponent agrees. In Mid 44, the allies should still be superior even if there are 1945 planes on Jap side.

Page 7 post 202 seems to be a Very Critical group of thoughts provided by our estemed veteran readers.
This type of production manipulation seems easier w/ the anvy fighters than the army fighters because the A6 series is robust and provides some serious tought fighers endgame. Problem w/ the army fighters is if I switch some oscar factory to say the Ki84 the Ki84 is not in the development tree of the oscar. I really dont want the 45 version of the oscar.

[John 3rd]

BigRed--Since this is your Thread, what might you like me to Post as a Screenshot for comparison?

[bigred]

Something similar to post 297 and 311 would be very nice.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

BigRed--Since this is your Thread, what might you like me to Post as a Screenshot for comparison?

[John 3rd]

I don't have your cut-and-paste ability but will try to get something similar up in a little while.

[John 3rd]

Here is an overview for Turn 150:

[bigred]

I must admit the reason I started the thread was to be able to go back and reference issues. More like an on line library. So from time to time I am pulling up issues from page 7 for example because now I can feel the power of my air production in the field as well as time to consider future options.

Very important to get the 3 x30 oscar factories going. I am 3 months late w/ this issue as I did not know to keep 10000 supply at the base. again the problem w/ the oscar is the bad army development tree.

I do request Mike to explain why the Ki100 is included as part of the Ki61 tree when tracker does not indicate this upgrade possiblity.