Lambs to the slaughter (Lowpe (J) vs Jocke; BillBrown (A)) Finished

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Darn it. I think I just clicked into Joc's by mistake -- we are adjacent on the board. Clicked out fast though, so no harm done.

Do you mean the fuel doesn't flow well for the Chinese, Lok? Been so long since I played Allies I can't remember...

Apart from out of Sian, I just don't think fuel flows very well in China at all. The movement algorithm should be the same regardless of whether it's the Chinese or Japanese moving the fuel. In my experience, it doesn't move very well over the dirt roads. It'll move some, but nowhere near enough. Sian's innate HI eats up some (or all?) of the fuel that it produces anyway.

Edit - in my Scen 2 game, Sian has 10 HI to go with 20 Oil/20 Refinery. So it eats up its own fuel production every turn, assuming full HI production. Fuel does seem to move out of Lanchow at least, but it's peanuts. I mean, cool you've blocked it now, but it was only giving up up to 100ish supply per day anyway. He's burning hundreds verging on 1000+ when there are combat ops.

[Lowpe]

Lok, you mistake my purpose for cutting China in half. I wanted to isolate the Chinese to the east and defeat them without eating up a terrible amount of my supplies. I now want to to grab the Central Plains...I have been shifting a lot of IJA forces to the west as they don't really need to worry about the Sian forces (which are quite strong).

Stopping the fuel flow to Chungking and other HI sources to the west are simply an added bonus. I will add up the HI in the western half -- I bet it is over 600 which is 1200 per day in supply gone as soon as the fuel runs out. The question is when the fuel runs out?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Lok, you mistake my purpose for cutting China in half. I wanted to isolate the Chinese to the east and defeat them without eating up a terrible amount of my supplies. I now want to to grab the Central Plains...I have been shifting a lot of IJA forces to the west as they don't really need to worry about the Sian forces (which are quite strong).

Stopping the fuel flow to Chungking and other HI sources to the west are simply an added bonus. I will add up the HI in the western half -- I bet it is over 600 which is 1200 per day in supply gone as soon as the fuel runs out. The question is when the fuel runs out?

I have done no such thing! Just arguing that it doesn't matter whether you cut the fuel off or not.

I'd wager that the fuel has been too low to run the HI regularly or out for quite some time. I don't think they begin the game with large stockpiles there.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Lok, you mistake my purpose for cutting China in half. I wanted to isolate the Chinese to the east and defeat them without eating up a terrible amount of my supplies. I now want to to grab the Central Plains...I have been shifting a lot of IJA forces to the west as they don't really need to worry about the Sian forces (which are quite strong).

Stopping the fuel flow to Chungking and other HI sources to the west are simply an added bonus. I will add up the HI in the western half -- I bet it is over 600 which is 1200 per day in supply gone as soon as the fuel runs out. The question is when the fuel runs out?

I have done no such thing! Just arguing that it doesn't matter whether you cut the fuel off or not.

I'd wager that the fuel has been too low to run the HI regularly or out for quite some time. I don't think they begin the game with large stockpiles there.

I always thought the oil flowed well enough to keep the HI running, albeit without much of a stockpile.

[Lowpe]

China has 590 HI in Central/Eastern China not conquered.

However, China's fuel refinery and oil in Urumchi, Sian, and Lanchow are a total of 130 each. There is also 20 HI in Sian.

130 points of oil equals 1300 oil per day equals 1,170 fuel per day produced. No supply produced in this mod.

It takes 2 fuel points to feed the HI; therefore even under perfect transport, China cannot establish a backlog of fuel to feed HI into the future unless the Burma road is open and fuel is able to move along that road network.

Opening fuel stock in China is roughly 9000 fuel. Very rough calculation here.

[Lowpe]

Relatively quiet couple of turns.

Manila will be attacked again today...hopefully we take the base. The Allied troops there have simply been pounded by air and artillery with no forts to hide behind and not much in the way of supply.

Quiet in India right now...Allies drop sub mines and we clear them. I am suspecting some type of attack here with surface ships, but I am also taking steps to protect the oil in the SRA with AA and fighters plus a strike package. We did manage to lay two depth charge hits on the Growler.

My hope is that Jocke moves forward, and my well escorted Betties or Nells lands a few good punches in.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

China has 590 HI in Central/Eastern China not conquered.

However, China's fuel refinery and oil in Urumchi, Sian, and Lanchow are a total of 130 each. There is also 20 HI in Sian.

130 points of oil equals 1300 oil per day equals 1,170 fuel per day produced. No supply produced in this mod.

It takes 2 fuel points to feed the HI; therefore even under perfect transport, China cannot establish a backlog of fuel to feed HI into the future unless the Burma road is open and fuel is able to move along that road network.

Opening fuel stock in China is roughly 9000 fuel. Very rough calculation here.

Are you counting Oil or Refinery as 130? Keep in mind that Urumchi isn't going to flow all the time, and not in large amounts.

Also, when DBB took away the 1 point of supply from the refinery...did it add it back in on the Fuel side? I remember looking this up in the past and thinking that they had, but I don't think I'm ever going to play DBB so I don't remember.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

China has 590 HI in Central/Eastern China not conquered.

However, China's fuel refinery and oil in Urumchi, Sian, and Lanchow are a total of 130 each. There is also 20 HI in Sian.

130 points of oil equals 1300 oil per day equals 1,170 fuel per day produced. No supply produced in this mod.

It takes 2 fuel points to feed the HI; therefore even under perfect transport, China cannot establish a backlog of fuel to feed HI into the future unless the Burma road is open and fuel is able to move along that road network.

Opening fuel stock in China is roughly 9000 fuel. Very rough calculation here.

Are you counting Oil or Refinery as 130? Keep in mind that Urumchi isn't going to flow all the time, and not in large amounts.

Also, when DBB took away the 1 point of supply from the refinery...did it add it back in on the Fuel side? I remember looking this up in the past and thinking that they had, but I don't think I'm ever going to play DBB so I don't remember.

Not to my knowledge.

[Lowpe]

Inputs and outputs.

[Lowpe]

Fuel = 130
Oil = 130

Perfectly balanced....

[Lowpe]

Manila Falls. Weakest defense of Luzon I ever saw.[&:] Still 40K troops in Bataan to surrender...VP ratio now at 3.5 to 1.

Frees up substantial forces for use elsewhere. India? Perth? Noumea? West Coast (eventually).

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Manila Falls. Weakest defense of Luzon I ever saw.[&:] Still 40K troops in Bataan to surrender...VP ratio now at 3.5 to 1.

Frees up substantial forces for use elsewhere. India? Perth? Noumea? West Coast (eventually).

Weakest? You had 3 divisions there! I'd argue this is tied for the strongest attack on Luzon I've ever seen. Also, what's the game date again? [;)] I've seen/caused/suffered the fall of Manila far sooner than yours. Months!

[Capt. Harlock]

Weakest? You had 3 divisions there! I'd argue this is tied for the strongest attack on Luzon I've ever seen.

I believe he was referring to the strength of the Allied garrison. It was probably reduced by bombardment and attrition.

[Lowpe]

I was speaking of absolutely no forts. I was expecting four attacks at each base Clark and Manila.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I was speaking of absolutely no forts. I was expecting four attacks at each base Clark and Manila.

Let us build forts of (4) but have no supply that becomes 1/4 of a forts of 4 (I'm not by my regular computer so I don't have my forts/supply chart .. your opponent might have made the decision to have more supply handy than build forts ...

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I was speaking of absolutely no forts. I was expecting four attacks at each base Clark and Manila.

Let us build forts of (4) but have no supply that becomes 1/4 of a forts of 4 (I'm not by my regular computer so I don't have my forts/supply chart .. your opponent might have made the decision to have more supply handy than build forts ...

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.

Granted he would have run out of supplies quicker having built forts, but Japan most likely would have had to attack several more times.

Not to mention the added defense the forts would have provided from the artillery and aerial bombardments.

I think every Allied player should attempt to run some supply in Luzon when it is bypassed. Whether that is by subs (that carry poor torpedoes) or by lone xaks (favored approach). I would even try to run some into Wenchow too. In this game, it would be difficult to get xaks from Oz into Luzon...but normally you might have from Pearl. It is a big ocean...

[Crackaces]

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.

Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..

[Lokasenna]

I didn't see that there were no forts. Your screenshots are rather truncated of late. For shame!!

[Lowpe]

Steady advance....might be another small snowball here.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

I might simply be whistling dixie here, but my belief is that troops without supply operate at around 25% effectiveness accumulating fatigue/disruption etc. Having no supply doesn't impact the positive bonus of fort multipliers. IMHO.

Let us say that 4 forts is X 2 and no supply is 1/4 that equates to 1/2 and you have no supply and your right accumulate bad stuff ... (4/2 * 1/4) the effects of supply and forts are cummulative .. now how much supply it takes over time needs to be calculated to get the right balance of how many forts/fort level to build over how much time given supply burn rate .. But I surmise your adversary made an inutitive calculation that building no forts maximized the supply end of this calculation ... that does not account for unknowns ..

Not building forts in order to "save" on supply consumption is almost always a serious mistake. If rationing supply consumption is critical, much better is to remove excess mouths.

In the above exemplar of level 4 forts with no supply, the pre-combat AV impact is:

(a) if in clear terrain

(1.75)(0.25) = 0.4375

(b) but if in urban light terrain

(1.75)(2)(0.25) = 0.875

(c) and in urban heavy terrain

(1.75)(4)(0.25) = 1.75

These are the worst case scenarios. Any supply will increase the (0.25) coefficient.

Alfred