Allied Resources

[John B.]

7 million? [>:] By October 44 I have 32,000,000 supply in San Fran. Of course I only have 5 million in Manila and maybe only 1.5 million in Shanghai so I may have to limit the men to only three servings of ice cream at dinner. [:D]

[panzer cat]

ORIGINAL: John B.

7 million? [>:] By October 44 I have 32,000,000 supply in San Fran. Of course I only have 5 million in Manila and maybe only 1.5 million in Shanghai so I may have to limit the men to only three servings of ice cream at dinner. [:D]

[:@]

[Alpha77]

This is one of the reasons I donot play Aliies much, I cannot comprehend or read these large digits [;)]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This is one of the reasons I donot play Aliies much, I cannot comprehend or read these large digits [;)]

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
This is one of the reasons I donot play Aliies much, I cannot comprehend or read these large digits [;)]

e-he-he-he... When I first played as Allied against Japanese AI after several games as Japan, I was constantly stressed because of those hu-uuge piles of goodness in CONUS and no way to employ them into research and stuff

On the other hand, once I captured San Francisco from Allied AI and got 13 mil supply bounty[:D]

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This is one of the reasons I donot play Aliies much, I cannot comprehend or read these large digits [;)]

Conversely, it hurts my brain imagining not being able to just convoy my infinite supply and fuel to wherever it was needed without needing to worry about much other than pathing and escorts.

[traskott]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
This is one of the reasons I donot play Aliies much, I cannot comprehend or read these large digits [;)]

e-he-he-he... When I first played as Allied against Japanese AI after several games as Japan, I was constantly stressed because of those hu-uuge piles of goodness in CONUS and no way to employ them into research and stuff

On the other hand, once I captured San Francisco from Allied AI and got 13 mil supply bounty[:D]

[&o]

Enough to mantain a land campaign in USA soil

[Bullwinkle58]

I read these periodic threads (and they are numerous going back to summer 2009) with some interest in how others play the game. Logistics is central to the Allied game in the same way R&D is to the Japan player. But folks, don't make it harder than it has to be! It's already hard.

The Allies need only care about two things--fuel and supply. There is never a need to move Resources (except, maybe, for 3-4 months Hilo-to PH.) There is never a need to move Oil. Ever. The tiny bit of supply generated in stock from refineries is overwhelmed by the game's mechanics. Oil is only available if it exceeds the demand of local refineries. And it almost never does in any base the Allies will keep after the amphib bonus is over. And everyhere there is a trickle of positive build of Oil, you leave hulls sitting there waiting to load Oil, when the SAME VESSELS could be loading the masses of Fuel sitting RIGHT THERE! I'm talking to you, Abadan.

Abadan makes Fuel, the run to Karachi is a couple of hexes in and out of the wormhole. It's easy to ASW protect those couple of hexes, even from the earliest days. Once in Karachi the Fuel goes everywhere on railroads. Done.

Same with Resources. The really massive LI centers--CONUS, Sydney, Calcutta, a few others--easily keep up with Resource needs from local, organic sources. There's no need to ship. Deny Japan some in the DEI? Please. A week or two bump. So many players have never gotten past the summer of 1942 they don't get how long this sucker is. And every day you hang around the DEI in 1941 loading bird poop for Oz you risk losing real, live ships and permanent VPs.

Fuel is the big constraint. Ship it whenever you can. I use xAKs in massive numbers to move Fuel. It's inefficient, but Inefficient is the name of the Allied baby. Off-map is a magic gift comparable to the Magic Highway across southern Asia for Japan. Use off-map to the max.

Finally, shipping to Oz from the Mideast. I don't do it. I know a lot of people do, but the IO is a Japan playground until mid-1943 at least. You can hug the map edge, but at least to Cocos I. the IJN can operate out of Medan (Fuel), or even Singers and through the strait at Oosthaven, and patrol that N-S route. Glen I-boats too. It's far, far easier to max the pull from EC into CT, then move east from CT, targeting non-Perth receiving bases. The game will eject from the wormhole at whatever latitude lines up with the destination base. Send to Christchurch, for example, and the fuel convoy will emerge far, far to the south. It's a real patrol challenge for Japan, and few players are going to invest in that. In one of my games, March 1942, I have fuel convoys heading for eight different bases in Oz and Taz and NZ. None are Perth.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
And every day you hang around the DEI in 1941 loading bird poop for Oz you risk losing real, live ships and permanent VPs.

I see a flaw in your logic here. I do not--and I know there are others like me around here even if they don't speak up about it--pay attention to VP for the purposes of measuring "winning and losing" the game; given this, and given the sheer number of Allied merchantmen the Allied player has access to during the course of the game, the threat of losing a few merchants and a small amount of VP by staying too long and having a convoy from the DEI caught by the IJN is pretty meaningless.

I'd rather have the thousands of tons of fuel out of the hands of the Japanese and in Perth, which lets me keep more of the Australian supply production online during the first year of the war.

I mean, really this comes back to the arguments around the Sir Robin. While it is perfectly valid to play the game this way--there is no wrong way to play and enjoy the game--using the logic of VP could lead one to the conclusion that they need to evacuate everything they can to minimize the VP the Japanese player will get from destroying men and equipment in their inevitable take over of whole portions of the Pacific.

For me, but not necessarily for others, this can leech the fun from the game because I like the simulation aspect. I kind of need the game to play like I am fighting a real war, where it would not have been okay to just pull everything out of harms way, and with some rare exceptions, let the Japanese do whatever they want for the first 6 or so months of the war.

As for moving fuel from India/Mid-East to Perth, I haven't done the math, but routing ships safely to Perth feels quicker and easier to do than routing around the Japanese expansion in the central Pacific; however, that all depends on how far the Japanese expand there.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
And every day you hang around the DEI in 1941 loading bird poop for Oz you risk losing real, live ships and permanent VPs.

I see a flaw in your logic here. I do not--and I know there are others like me around here even if they don't speak up about it--pay attention to VP for the purposes of measuring "winning and losing" the game; given this, and given the sheer number of Allied merchantmen the Allied player has access to during the course of the game, the threat of losing a few merchants and a small amount of VP by staying too long and having a convoy from the DEI caught by the IJN is pretty meaningless.

I'd rather have the thousands of tons of fuel out of the hands of the Japanese and in Perth, which lets me keep more of the Australian supply production online during the first year of the war.

I mean, really this comes back to the arguments around the Sir Robin. While it is perfectly valid to play the game this way--there is no wrong way to play and enjoy the game--using the logic of VP could lead one to the conclusion that they need to evacuate everything they can to minimize the VP the Japanese player will get from destroying men and equipment in their inevitable take over of whole portions of the Pacific.

For me, but not necessarily for others, this can leech the fun from the game because I like the simulation aspect. I kind of need the game to play like I am fighting a real war, where it would not have been okay to just pull everything out of harms way, and with some rare exceptions, let the Japanese do whatever they want for the first 6 or so months of the war.

As for moving fuel from India/Mid-East to Perth, I haven't done the math, but routing ships safely to Perth feels quicker and easier to do than routing around the Japanese expansion in the central Pacific; however, that all depends on how far the Japanese expand there.

If you don't play for VPs I can't help you. You're not playing the game.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


If you don't play for VPs I can't help you. You're not playing the game.

Now, you see, you've done what I went out of the way not to do, which is to tell someone there is only one "right way" to play and enjoy the game. Let me make a few points.

First

I have three PBEMs going on with three different opponents, and in none of them are we observing autovictory. I cannot necessarily speak for my opponents in this regard, but I am certainly not worried about using VP to judge who won or lost when the game ends.

The enjoyment I get out of the game comes primarily from the sense that I am "roleplaying" re-fighting the, or at least "a", real war. I probably end up doing things that someone who is playing for VP would think is insane--like really putting up a fight for Singapore and the DEI or risking ships in the early war just to make sure my opponent stays honest and has to provide cover everywhere they go.

Generally, my decisions, especially early war ones, are partially tied to what I think the political necessities of the actual combatants were, or might have been.

My question for you would be, do you really, deep down, believe that I, or any of my three opponents, are "not playing the game," because of this?

Second

I [s]completely[/s] mostly disagree with how the VP abstract "victory" in any case. My basis for this is my belief that if the historical result of the war would not be "Total Allied Victory" in the game, then something is wrong in the Kingdom of Denmark.

Third

I understand that this is a game, and people who are not me like to play the game as a game, to differing degrees. Some people like to mix more of the competitive aspect into the "simulation" aspect that I enjoy, and some people like to play the game exactly as a game--like Chess. In both cases VP is going to be super important to them having fun.

And, just so we are clear, that is perfectly reasonable!; however, I probably would not make the best opponent for you--especially in the later case.

Finally

Do not get me wrong. I use VP at times as a measure of how costly a campaign or loss has been, I just do not use it as a metric of victory or defeat. So it is not like I am claiming it is totally useless.

It is however, of very little value to me in the context of your original post. I am not hiding my merchantmen and ignoring a close source of much needed fuel for Australia because I might lose 50VP if one of my convoys gets caught by the IJN.

[Bullwinkle58]

All well and good. Do what you like.

But it is objectively true that if you play so that you can harm the Japanese (take fuel and resources out of the DEI) at no cost or risk to yourself, you have deformed the game design. You can play chess or you can push pieces. You're pushing pieces.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I read these periodic threads (and they are numerous going back to summer 2009) with some interest in how others play the game. Logistics is central to the Allied game in the same way R&D is to the Japan player. But folks, don't make it harder than it has to be! It's already hard.

The Allies need only care about two things--fuel and supply. There is never a need to move Resources (except, maybe, for 3-4 months Hilo-to PH.) There is never a need to move Oil. Ever. The tiny bit of supply generated in stock from refineries is overwhelmed by the game's mechanics. Oil is only available if it exceeds the demand of local refineries. And it almost never does in any base the Allies will keep after the amphib bonus is over. And everyhere there is a trickle of positive build of Oil, you leave hulls sitting there waiting to load Oil, when the SAME VESSELS could be loading the masses of Fuel sitting RIGHT THERE! I'm talking to you, Abadan.

Abadan makes Fuel, the run to Karachi is a couple of hexes in and out of the wormhole. It's easy to ASW protect those couple of hexes, even from the earliest days. Once in Karachi the Fuel goes everywhere on railroads. Done.

Same with Resources. The really massive LI centers--CONUS, Sydney, Calcutta, a few others--easily keep up with Resource needs from local, organic sources. There's no need to ship. Deny Japan some in the DEI? Please. A week or two bump. So many players have never gotten past the summer of 1942 they don't get how long this sucker is. And every day you hang around the DEI in 1941 loading bird poop for Oz you risk losing real, live ships and permanent VPs.

Fuel is the big constraint. Ship it whenever you can. I use xAKs in massive numbers to move Fuel. It's inefficient, but Inefficient is the name of the Allied baby. Off-map is a magic gift comparable to the Magic Highway across southern Asia for Japan. Use off-map to the max.

Finally, shipping to Oz from the Mideast. I don't do it. I know a lot of people do, but the IO is a Japan playground until mid-1943 at least. You can hug the map edge, but at least to Cocos I. the IJN can operate out of Medan (Fuel), or even Singers and through the strait at Oosthaven, and patrol that N-S route. Glen I-boats too. It's far, far easier to max the pull from EC into CT, then move east from CT, targeting non-Perth receiving bases. The game will eject from the wormhole at whatever latitude lines up with the destination base. Send to Christchurch, for example, and the fuel convoy will emerge far, far to the south. It's a real patrol challenge for Japan, and few players are going to invest in that. In one of my games, March 1942, I have fuel convoys heading for eight different bases in Oz and Taz and NZ. None are Perth.

I do play for Victory Points [:D] verses the AI (...so far to date).

Thank you Bull and a good perspective... I am the relative rookie here. [;)]

So other new comers should note.

I cannot point to anything in particular mechanically that would refute what you say. My impressions are really just that - impressions - not very statistically analyzed.

--

My counter "opinions" [8D]...

i) Fully agree never "risk" ships or strategic assets sucking oil out of Palembang for example - to dump in Australia.

However Singapore and the DEI contain more than sufficient Air Search assets in December 1941 - March 1942 to track the threats..and mitigate those risks. I would suggest I grab the low hanging fruit and run. That is a better way to describe it. Further after all the fuel I can grab first. I don't consider that counter to the game design.. simply what the Allies did or could have done in December 1941 (Xreference shipping out of Singapore and the challenges there in).

(Mileage will vary with experienced opponents)

ii) Resources / Oil - dedicating assets to these tasks.

Assuming the Allied Commander in chief is able to save a large number of ships from the Japanese onslaught in the Philippines, DEI, Borneo, etc the Allied Commander will have a significant stock pile of low endurance xAK, TK, and even some AO (those TAN jobs - boy I scratched my head about those). Their capacity, endurance or range, and speed make them poor candidates to run just fuel and supplies from the CONUSA and Capetown to Australia or New Zealand. Perhaps in your experience you employ a more effective hub spoke mechanism than I do (?).

(Capacity often very low and range = 4000 range = 6000 range = 8800 - productive in running these mini runs as I have suggested. Resources to Australia from >> Noumea >> Tasmania >> Victoria to Seattle >> Hilo to Pearl etc etc. Oil is the most interesting to me in particular).

In stock game: (say March 42 - Mar 43)

I agree you should amass fuel and supply in Karachi - Bombay firstly and so indicated.

i) Untouched - Ledo seems to amass huge amounts of Oil. If this is "leaking across the border to Rangoon with its refinery" it is not obvious or painfully slow (and an environmental catastrophe LOL) . Most Allied player are unlikely to conquer Rangoon before the Japanese Movement bonus is done.

ii) India seems to have no refinery - I could be wrong but fairly certain.

iii) If you build Madras Port and stockpile Oil - you amass plenty oil quickly - and despite the slower loading speed - a fully enhanced Madras is an incredible port. Turn around time is nominal.

iv) It is largely my opinion [8D] that those Oils and Resource assets "smooth out" the Fuel and supply situation in Australia. They are not enough to "supply the war effort" but are enough to prevent "leaving you temporarily dry" when you most need it.

All at the cost of productively running low endurance/range xAK's TKs and perhaps 1 x KV and 2 X TK (endurance 12000).

The Indian Ocean is so very big that west of Coco's islands its hard to imagine the IJN will effectively stop this route...

(Mileage can differ with experienced opponents)

Cheers

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

All well and good. Do what you like.

But it is objectively true that if you play so that you can harm the Japanese (take fuel and resources out of the DEI) at no cost or risk to yourself, you have deformed the game design. You can play chess or you can push pieces. You're pushing pieces.

With all due respect, but IMHO using "xAKs in massive numbers to move Fuel" and "Use off-map to the max" is deforming the game design and is not wargaming but "pushing pieces".

There are obviously two schools of thoughts and it boils down to playing style preferences.

Personally, I agree with Revthought - I like to role-play instead of doing VP optimizing.

As has been stated many times here on the forum, it is important to find an opponent with the same playing style.

[Aurorus]

As a JFB, I really do not care how the allies choose to move resources, oil, and fuel. I do not view any of these solutions or opinions as "gamey." My objective, regardless of what the allied player does, is try to sink tankers and prevent fuel from building up in strategic areas for as long as possible. So, do what you will, and I will try to adjust accordingly.

As to the whole Victory Point debate: the purpose of the Victory points and the victory conditions is to prevent a full-on Sir Robin. A full-on Sir Robin will allow Japan to advance very rapidly into India or Australia or elsewhere and gain VPs for base captures. Once again, I do not really care whether the allies choose to fight, whether they choose to run, or some combination of both.

As to VPs and how to play the game, I will gladly play until time expires or Japan is conquered, but if I achieve auto-victory at some point in the game, in my mind, I have won. That is my goal. If I do not, I have lost or at best played my opponent to a draw. My opponent can have whatever goal they desire. It does not affect my enjoyment of the game or my play.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

All well and good. Do what you like.

But it is objectively true that if you play so that you can harm the Japanese (take fuel and resources out of the DEI) at no cost or risk to yourself, you have deformed the game design. You can play chess or you can push pieces. You're pushing pieces.

With all due respect, but IMHO using "xAKs in massive numbers to move Fuel" and "Use off-map to the max" is deforming the game design and is not wargaming but "pushing pieces".

On the contrary, those two techniques are built into the core design. There's nothing deforming about them, any more than moving mega-tons of fuel across south Asia on mules. Folks a lot smarter than me and with bigger libraries assigned liquid limits to xAKs. Any ship can move fuel in some quantity, ballast tanks converted, drums if need be. Same with xAPs, as deck cargo if need be. Off-map the same idea. Just because Japan doesn't have off-map doesn't make it gamey to use it. The devs could have allowed attacks off-map; they didn't. They could have used fuel in off-map;; they didn't. They could have accrued damage off-map; they didn't. The code to do any of those things would be minor, but they would all affect play balance. And every one of them is in the design.

OTOH, the issue I addressed IS NOT in the game design. Gaining a benefit at no cost or risk is nowhere in the design. It's playing golf without a scorecard. It's just whacking the ball around.

There are obviously two schools of thoughts and it boils down to playing style preferences.

Personally, I agree with Revthought - I like to role-play instead of doing VP optimizing.

That's nice. Except if you're playing the GAME, the Allies cannot, under the design, win the GAME without an auto-victory. Can't be done. So if you ignore VPs, the Allies can't win. Most people who play a game for four years want to know who won. If you like to whack the ball around, have at it. Obviously we will never play each other. But it needs to be said over and over, every time this comes up, that "ignoring VPs" is not "playing the game."

As has been stated many times here on the forum, it is important to find an opponent with the same playing style.

It has been said many times.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


As to the whole Victory Point debate: the purpose of the Victory points and the victory conditions is to prevent a full-on Sir Robin. A full-on Sir Robin will allow Japan to advance very rapidly into India or Australia or elsewhere and gain VPs for base captures. Once again, I do not really care whether the allies choose to fight, whether they choose to run, or some combination of both.

As to VPs and how to play the game, I will gladly play until time expires or Japan is conquered, but if I achieve auto-victory at some point in the game, in my mind, I have won. That is my goal. If I do not, I have lost or at best played my opponent to a draw. My opponent can have whatever goal they desire. It does not affect my enjoyment of the game or my play.

The purpose of VPs is not to prevent or discourage a Sir Robin. That might be an effect; it might not. But VPs are core to the entire game, every era. They are the "currency" of risk analysis. If you ignore them the store is open and you can walk in and take what you like. Over time that gets boring to people who like to work for their stuff.

From the Allied POV in the design, they have to have an auto-victory to win under the victory conditions. Without one the best they can do is a draw. Japan can win by simply not losing.

[Bullwinkle58]

Comments in-line.

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


I do play for Victory Points [:D] verses the AI (...so far to date).

EVERYTHING is different versus the AI.

Thank you Bull and a good perspective... I am the relative rookie here. [;)]

So other new comers should note.

I cannot point to anything in particular mechanically that would refute what you say. My impressions are really just that - impressions - not very statistically analyzed.

--

My counter "opinions" [8D]...

i) Fully agree never "risk" ships or strategic assets sucking oil out of Palembang for example - to dump in Australia.

However Singapore and the DEI contain more than sufficient Air Search assets in December 1941 - March 1942 to track the threats..and mitigate those risks. I would suggest I grab the low hanging fruit and run. That is a better way to describe it. Further after all the fuel I can grab first. I don't consider that counter to the game design.. simply what the Allies did or could have done in December 1941 (Xreference shipping out of Singapore and the challenges there in).

(Mileage will vary with experienced opponents)

This last is the key.

I've played 1942 in four PBEM games now. Two opponents hyper-experienced, one moderately, one (currently) a newbie (but learning.) In one case I had Singers in March. In my newbie game, mid-March, I have lost pretty much everything "normal" except Soerbaja (hanging by toenails), and northern Sumatra. You don't have the kind of time you're used to when playing a PBEM.

One of my "hypers" had totally optimized the opening game. Had played it six times in a row. He had one technique so devastating I'm surprised it's not a standard JFB move. It completely upset the DEI apple cart. The "bowl" was sealed in less than ten days. He had 100% coverage of every exit in less than a week, much less mostly. A couple of DDs and a CL is enough. If a JFB focuses on that and not landings the first week, he can bag several hundred ships without breaking a sweat. I saw it. So, in a PBEM, against a good JFB, you just don't have time to load crap and move away. You have to FLEE. And even then you'll get crunched badly. Air search? Nice, but he has more and better, and his is mobile. And it's no use knowing where Doom is coming from if you can't fight Doom. And xAKLs can't.

ii) Resources / Oil - dedicating assets to these tasks.

Assuming the Allied Commander in chief is able to save a large number of ships from the Japanese onslaught in the Philippines, DEI, Borneo, etc the Allied Commander will have a significant stock pile of low endurance xAK, TK, and even some AO (those TAN jobs - boy I scratched my head about those). Their capacity, endurance or range, and speed make them poor candidates to run just fuel and supplies from the CONUSA and Capetown to Australia or New Zealand. Perhaps in your experience you employ a more effective hub spoke mechanism than I do (?).

You usually do get a gaggle out, sure. I take them southwest. Maybe Perth, maybe not that far. I group by speed and fuel capacity, put the small fry with big brothers, and head off-map. xAPs too. You don't have a lot of troops to move for a long time, and xAPs can haul some fuel. Disband everything at CT, then build like-speed TFs and shove them at EC. At Full. Set up a railroad. The TANs and all the small fry are fine. Ships that leave CT with fuel never run out, even at Full. They refuel in Brazil and PR, etc. It's in the design. Use it. Couple of months and CT has a stockpile. Then start shoving it east in xAKs, like-speed again. I usually don't escort them. Don't have the escorts, and escorts slow them down drinking. If a sub gets one so what? I target multiple ports in OZ, Taz, and NZ. I stay south. The TANs and other slow and short-legged, stay on the off-map railroad. I only bring fuel to Oz on-map much later, usually from PH once I have lots of escorts. Then I use TKs.

(Capacity often very low and range = 4000 range = 6000 range = 8800 - productive in running these mini runs as I have suggested. Resources to Australia from >> Noumea >> Tasmania >> Victoria to Seattle >> Hilo to Pearl etc etc. Oil is the most interesting to me in particular).



If I got the picture in the right place, you can see here my March 1942 Oz. Every LI site that needs Resources has Resources. I have not shipped a pound of Resources in or out. The decision in OZ is whether to turn HI off in the big HI centers like Sydney. That's a fuel decision. Up to you. But your LI is happy without Resource lift.

In stock game: (say March 42 - Mar 43)

I agree you should amass fuel and supply in Karachi - Bombay firstly and so indicated.

i) Untouched - Ledo seems to amass huge amounts of Oil.

No. Ledo has very little Oil. It wants to feed Rangoon. If you have Ledo and Japan has Rangoon, you sit on Oil. But not much.

If this is "leaking across the border to Rangoon with its refinery" it is not obvious or painfully slow (and an environmental catastrophe LOL) . Most Allied players are unlikely to conquer Rangoon before the Japanese Movement bonus is done.

Not sure what you mean here. Rangoon in Japan hands takes Oil feed from Magwe. Magwe can be bombed early and hard, and should be.

ii) India seems to have no refinery - I could be wrong but fairly certain.

iii) If you build Madras Port and stockpile Oil - you amass plenty oil quickly - and despite the slower loading speed - a fully enhanced Madras is an incredible port. Turn around time is nominal.

Oil at Madras is tits on a bull. You want fuel at Madras. Ships operate from there. Fuel dropped at Karachi comes to Madras. Several million if you base ships there. Again, the only use for Oil to the Allies is making a tiny bit of Supply at refineries. And you have so much Supply you're tripping on it. The Ind. convoys drop many millions off-map. On-map is lavish. I have over 20 million in SF I know. About 12 million in Prince Rupert. I can never, ever move what I already have in my 1944 game. Moving it is hard; getting it is easy.

iv) It is largely my opinion [8D] that those Oils and Resource assets "smooth out" the Fuel and supply situation in Australia. They are not enough to "supply the war effort" but are enough to prevent "leaving you temporarily dry" when you most need it.

As above, you don't need anything in Oz but Fuel. Bring it as Fuel and HI Man is happy.

All at the cost of productively running low endurance/range xAK's TKs and perhaps 1 x KV and 2 X TK (endurance 12000).

If you run the railroad they don't use fuel. But if they go on-map they do. EC is infinitely big fuel-wise. You'll have some transport costs, but all you pay for is CT to destination, and back to CT. It's the cheapest ticket in the game.

The Indian Ocean is so very big that west of Coco's islands its hard to imagine the IJN will effectively stop this route...

4E patrol out of northern Sumatra can cover most of the western reaches. A few Glens with overlapping circles can do the rest. A few DD TFs out of Sabang and you're bleeding TKs. The AI doesn't do this. Don't get bad habits. [:)].
(Mileage can differ with experienced opponents)

Again, this is key. Advertise for a PBEM. You might like it.
Cheers

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Comments in-line.

ORIGINAL: Macclan5


I do play for Victory Points [:D] verses the AI (...so far to date).

EVERYTHING is different versus the AI.

Thank you Bull and a good perspective... I am the relative rookie here. [;)]

So other new comers should note.

I cannot point to anything in particular mechanically that would refute what you say. My impressions are really just that - impressions - not very statistically analyzed.

--

My counter "opinions" [8D]...

i) Fully agree never "risk" ships or strategic assets sucking oil out of Palembang for example - to dump in Australia.

However Singapore and the DEI contain more than sufficient Air Search assets in December 1941 - March 1942 to track the threats..and mitigate those risks. I would suggest I grab the low hanging fruit and run. That is a better way to describe it. Further after all the fuel I can grab first. I don't consider that counter to the game design.. simply what the Allies did or could have done in December 1941 (Xreference shipping out of Singapore and the challenges there in).

(Mileage will vary with experienced opponents)

This last is the key.

I've played 1942 in four PBEM games now. Two opponents hyper-experienced, one moderately, one (currently) a newbie (but learning.) In one case I had Singers in March. In my newbie game, mid-March, I have lost pretty much everything "normal" except Soerbaja (hanging by toenails), and northern Sumatra. You don't have the kind of time you're used to when playing a PBEM.

One of my "hypers" had totally optimized the opening game. Had played it six times in a row. He had one technique so devastating I'm surprised it's not a standard JFB move. It completely upset the DEI apple cart. The "bowl" was sealed in less than ten days. He had 100% coverage of every exit in less than a week, much less mostly. A couple of DDs and a CL is enough. If a JFB focuses on that and not landings the first week, he can bag several hundred ships without breaking a sweat. I saw it. So, in a PBEM, against a good JFB, you just don't have time to load crap and move away. You have to FLEE. And even then you'll get crunched badly. Air search? Nice, but he has more and better, and his is mobile. And it's no use knowing where Doom is coming from if you can't fight Doom. And xAKLs can't.

ii) Resources / Oil - dedicating assets to these tasks.

Assuming the Allied Commander in chief is able to save a large number of ships from the Japanese onslaught in the Philippines, DEI, Borneo, etc the Allied Commander will have a significant stock pile of low endurance xAK, TK, and even some AO (those TAN jobs - boy I scratched my head about those). Their capacity, endurance or range, and speed make them poor candidates to run just fuel and supplies from the CONUSA and Capetown to Australia or New Zealand. Perhaps in your experience you employ a more effective hub spoke mechanism than I do (?).

You usually do get a gaggle out, sure. I take them southwest. Maybe Perth, maybe not that far. I group by speed and fuel capacity, put the small fry with big brothers, and head off-map. xAPs too. You don't have a lot of troops to move for a long time, and xAPs can haul some fuel. Disband everything at CT, then build like-speed TFs and shove them at EC. At Full. Set up a railroad. The TANs and all the small fry are fine. Ships that leave CT with fuel never run out, even at Full. They refuel in Brazil and PR, etc. It's in the design. Use it. Couple of months and CT has a stockpile. Then start shoving it east in xAKs, like-speed again. I usually don't escort them. Don't have the escorts, and escorts slow them down drinking. If a sub gets one so what? I target multiple ports in OZ, Taz, and NZ. I stay south. The TANs and other slow and short-legged, stay on the off-map railroad. I only bring fuel to Oz on-map much later, usually from PH once I have lots of escorts. Then I use TKs.

(Capacity often very low and range = 4000 range = 6000 range = 8800 - productive in running these mini runs as I have suggested. Resources to Australia from >> Noumea >> Tasmania >> Victoria to Seattle >> Hilo to Pearl etc etc. Oil is the most interesting to me in particular).



If I got the picture in the right place, you can see here my March 1942 Oz. Every LI site that needs Resources has Resources. I have not shipped a pound of Resources in or out. The decision in OZ is whether to turn HI off in the big HI centers like Sydney. That's a fuel decision. Up to you. But your LI is happy without Resource lift.

In stock game: (say March 42 - Mar 43)

I agree you should amass fuel and supply in Karachi - Bombay firstly and so indicated.

i) Untouched - Ledo seems to amass huge amounts of Oil.

No. Ledo has very little Oil. It wants to feed Rangoon. If you have Ledo and Japan has Rangoon, you sit on Oil. But not much.

If this is "leaking across the border to Rangoon with its refinery" it is not obvious or painfully slow (and an environmental catastrophe LOL) . Most Allied players are unlikely to conquer Rangoon before the Japanese Movement bonus is done.

Not sure what you mean here. Rangoon in Japan hands takes Oil feed from Magwe. Magwe can be bombed early and hard, and should be.

ii) India seems to have no refinery - I could be wrong but fairly certain.

iii) If you build Madras Port and stockpile Oil - you amass plenty oil quickly - and despite the slower loading speed - a fully enhanced Madras is an incredible port. Turn around time is nominal.

Oil at Madras is tits on a bull. You want fuel at Madras. Ships operate from there. Fuel dropped at Karachi comes to Madras. Several million if you base ships there. Again, the only use for Oil to the Allies is making a tiny bit of Supply at refineries. And you have so much Supply you're tripping on it. The Ind. convoys drop many millions off-map. On-map is lavish. I have over 20 million in SF I know. About 12 million in Prince Rupert. I can never, ever move what I already have in my 1944 game. Moving it is hard; getting it is easy.

iv) It is largely my opinion [8D] that those Oils and Resource assets "smooth out" the Fuel and supply situation in Australia. They are not enough to "supply the war effort" but are enough to prevent "leaving you temporarily dry" when you most need it.

As above, you don't need anything in Oz but Fuel. Bring it as Fuel and HI Man is happy.

All at the cost of productively running low endurance/range xAK's TKs and perhaps 1 x KV and 2 X TK (endurance 12000).

If you run the railroad they don't use fuel. But if they go on-map they do. EC is infinitely big fuel-wise. You'll have some transport costs, but all you pay for is CT to destination, and back to CT. It's the cheapest ticket in the game.

The Indian Ocean is so very big that west of Coco's islands its hard to imagine the IJN will effectively stop this route...

4E patrol out of northern Sumatra can cover most of the western reaches. A few Glens with overlapping circles can do the rest. A few DD TFs out of Sabang and you're bleeding TKs. The AI doesn't do this. Don't get bad habits. [:)].
(Mileage can differ with experienced opponents)

Again, this is key. Advertise for a PBEM. You might like it.
Cheers

Well thought out. Thank you.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Just because something has been built (or not) into the game design doesn't mean it's "right" - for a role-player. It's a mentality thing - some players go "the game mechanics allow it so it's ok" and others go "even if the game mechanics allow it, it's nonsense".

Yes, theoretically it might be possible to ship fuel oil (i.e. Bunker C) aboard AK and AP types in drums or ballast tanks, and it might have been done IRL - occasionally, on a small scale, in a pinch and if everything else fails. But I seriously doubt that it has ever been done IRL at a scale your are using in the game - that is "xAK in MASSIVE NUMBERS to move fuel". Not just for a lack of drums (which magically appear when needed in the game - but not IRL - just some many other necessary abstractions), but for the inefficiency, the time-consuming handling, the inherent dangers etc. involved. Since large-scale movement of ship fuel in drums has not been done IRL, it is a no-no for role-players.

Btw, one of the Devs (JWE aka Symon) has commented on the forum that about the only house rule he deems justified to be used is "not moving fuel in AK types".

Concerning off-map movement: No fuel use is ok, assuming the ships can refuel at stop-overs. However, running full speed off map because the game design allows it for no penalty is just not realistic - you would not do this IRL since there would be penalties. Furthermore, the game design does not include any risks for off-map movement - you can send ships to ET, Canada and the UK without facing German u-boats, raiders and Fw200. Full-speed runs of unescorted merchies across the Atlantic with no risk whatsoever are (indirectly) harming the Japanese player (by increased efficiency on the Allied side) at no cost or risk to the Allied player.
This is not realistic - but it's an abstraction we must accept. However, the deliberate use of this abstraction "TO THE MAX" is taking advantage of the game engine. For a role-player, it is cheesy. And it's not a AFB-hater thing, because the mystical "magic highway" through China some JFBs are aiming for is unrealistic and objectionable as well for me.

Other example - using KB to bomb industrial targets in Australia early in the war to obtain a max of strategic points. Everybody knows there are no fighters and not much AA in Oz at the beginning and that it will take many weeks before the Allies can offer any credible resistance. So, harming the enemy for no risk for yourself...

For a player keen on VP harvesting this is a dream. For a role-player, this is taking advantage of a game mechanic. No real-life Admiral would issue operation orders to bomb industries for example at Brisbane because "it will yield permanent VPs".
"Ignoring VPs" means ignoring them as the prime motivation to conduct operations. For a real-life Admiral - and for a role-player - a "valid" reason to attack Brisbane would be to sink ships, destroy planes and damage the base facilities in order to delay the Allies. Attacking industry targets might figure as a "denial" target, but would be a waste of effort - drop in a bucket and easily repaired with abundant Allied supplies.


Now, a GAME has to end somehow and with a result. Yes, VPs can be used to calculate the result, to see who is "winning" and and when the GAME should end. It is the only way for ending AI GAMES. If you want to base your victory in a PBEM on VP points as well - fine, go harvesting VPs if you want and aim for auto-victory.

But in a PBEM, unless player skills are matched unevenly, the Allies will always the WAR (strategic situation). The Allies can afford lose more stuff than they did historically and might be behind in VPs - they will still arrive at the doorsteps of the Home Islands in 1944 or 1945. If you have won the WAR, you have in a sense won the GAME, regardless of the VP situation.

As a JFB I do accept from the beginning that I will not win the WAR and most likely neither the GAME. Some satisfaction may come from having inflicted heavier-than-historic losses and gained a few more VPs - but for me, the journey is the reward.

So, as a Japanese role-player who is fighting a war and not the game mechanics, you might as well ignore VPs and decide for yourself when you have had enough and it is time to surrender - regardless of what the VPs say. Some may throw the towel when KB is lost, others when the first A-bomb drops, or Allies land on the Home Islands, or only after Tokyo has been conquered.

Now, VP harvesting or role playing - either way of playing this game is fine, but claims that only the VP way is the correct one, as post #30 sounds like, just does not sit well with the other side. But well, we shouldn't fight in here - it's the war room. 'nough said.