Autoconvoy and Cs convoys

[littleike]

This is an extract from old forum threads that try to clarify the question when to use CS or Autoconvoys.
I open a new topic as someone suggested to avoid continuous reference to older threads and to have a plain view
of the question without players preconceived believes positions toward the use of one or the other AI convoy management system.
I also think that is an error not to use a game feature unless really bugged. Here the squeeze:

There are two quite different modes of AI controlled convoys.

1. Auto convoys
2. Continuous supply convoys
Essentially the difference between the two is that with:

(a) auto convoys

• there are only 3 port hubs, Colombo, San Francisco and Osaka
• ships must be located at one of the port hubs and specifically allocated to be assigned to the pool of ships dedicated solely for auto convoys
• the port hub will only send auto convoys out to bases which have been specifically marked as part of the auto convoy system
• it is designed for servicing rear areas - assign short legged merchantmen to the pool, the AI will send them the shortest route commensurate
with their endurance irrespective if this entails sailing through enemy controlled air and sea space.
In the "Show Auto-Convoy system (H)" menu, move a few AK, TK, and escorts (in San Francisco and/or Colombo for the Allies Osaka for Japan)
to the pool. Once in the pool, they will not be available for non Auto-Convoy use and will be displayed in Red instead of the normal Yellow.

b) From the "Select all Bases (B)" menu, select a base that should receive supplies automatically.

c) In the Base panel (Anchorage, for instance), toggle "Automatic Convoy Off" button to "Automatic Convoy On" and set the supply amount to
the desired quantity (say I set it to 10,000 supply).

d) repeat b and c until all chosen bases are set. Now, for this example, the computer will send a convoy from San Francisco to Anchorage
when the supply amount drops below 10,000 supplies.

NB: The Auto Convoys will deliver only if the destination port runs low on supply/fuel, which I think is convenient.

(b) continuous supply convoys

• are manually created by the player at any port, setting destination and carry orders and then handed over to computer control
• is less of a create and forget process than auto convoys - it entails more micromanagement than auto convoys but the payoff is greater
flexibility as to what they can do and where they go to.

NB: The continuous supply is a non stop continuous cycle independently from base requirements and must be monitored from the player
to stop it if there is no more need to supply or risk to overload a base.

There are no real problems associated with using either mode. Do not believe anyone who tells you that either mode does not work properly.
Invariably any problems are directly attributable to player errors and lack of understanding of how the system actually operates and what it is intended to achieve.
With Auto Convoys you once set the desired level of supply (or change it as needed), and then leave the whole system alone. Auto Convoys will try to make sure
your requirements are met. Of course, you need to make sure there is enough shipping space available at the loading ports, there is enough supply/fuel available
at the loading ports, and - important! - the Auto Convoys coud be able to trace a secure path to the destination port.

NB: Disadvantage of Auto Convoy System: you cannot use waypoints! Auto Convoys will however try to stay away from contested areas and will also try to avoid spotted enemy subs. The implication should be clear: do not use Auto Convoys to support ports near enemy bases. That's what (heavily guarded) CS are for.

[Sardaukar]

If you use Auto-Convoys, just limit their use to "safe" areas, e.g. Alaska, NW Canada etc.

Don't use them anywhere near enemy, or you'll regret it.

It is just easier to check those obscure bases on map, yellow ! (exclamation point) on base will tell that it needs supply urgently, red ! that it is already critically low supply. Red ! can indicate also partisan attack for low garrison, but that is not usually any base that you can reach by ship (some places in China are exception).

[btd64]

I use a healthy mix of both....GP

[Ambassador]

…
I also think that is an error not to use a game feature unless really bugged. Here the squeeze:
…
NB: Disadvantage of Auto Convoy System: you cannot use waypoints! Auto Convoys will however try to stay away from contested areas and will also try to avoid spotted enemy subs. The implication should be clear: do not use Auto Convoys to support ports near enemy bases. That's what (heavily guarded) CS are for.

Play this game enough, and you’ll see the AI shouldn’t be trusted with anything the human player can do. We can do everything better. Routing by the AI is done through algorithms which are obscure for most of us (and apart from the Devs, the only one claiming knowledge of them hardly played the game first-hand…). As such, some variables sometimes dictate movements which are, if not downright suicidal, tremendously dangerous.

By using CS convoys, and keeping notes to remember monitoring them from time to time, you get much more control on your logistics. Manage the waypoints, the refueling options, speed, and shift the composition of the convoys when ships are damaged or need refits ; CS is not a fire-and-forget option.

Use supply hubs, keeping a handful of xAKL even in backwaters, to keep isolated bases supplied when you see the yellow « ! » Sardaukar mentioned. Have a routine check of all bases, monthly, in a sort of rolling agenda (e.g. check all SoPac bases on the 8th of each month and all West Coast bases on the 15th of each month, etc). If you have a routine task set for each day of the month, this will spare you the tedious chores of having to check 200 bases when you remember to do it. Same goes for checking training squadrons, convoys, upgrades, etc. It’s a way to speed your turns too, when you don’t have to think about what parts of the map you haven’t checked in a long time.

I wouldn’t use CS, even heavily guarded ones, near enemy bases. Keep those on manual control, to ensure escorts stay enough (and order LRCAP if you don’t have CV/CVE to follow them). Depending on the size of the port supplying your combat units, and the degree of threat (both air and naval), amphibious TF might even be preferable to resupply your units (and certainly so at dot bases or when you haven’t taken control of the hex yet).

[littleike]

Here are some Alfred considerations about the Auto/CS convoys usage that summarize very well the matter. As stated early I reassume them here for clarity.

I am certain that all the criticism made over the years to the Auto Convoy system is due to simply not using it properly.

1. You have to nominate which bases are within the system. Why would you put any base within range of enemy aircraft? Doing so is just not smart play.

2. The routes from the supply source to the nominated bases will take the shortest route possible, taking into account known enemy air concentrations. Again why would you put a base into the system where the route to it will pass through potential enemy air concentrations? It isn't difficult to see what hexes will be traversed.

3. Ships have to be specifically allocated to the system. That means not just merchantmen but also escorts. If you put too few escorts into the system, of course there are going to be some convoys without escorts. Whose fault is that?

The auto convoy system is intended to service the area way behind the frontline, where no enemy activity is expected. The continuous supply convoy system, with its ability to incorporate player designed waypoints precisely because enemy activity is possible, is designed for logistical operations closer to the frontlines.Both the Auto Convoy and Continuous Supply systems are in the game primarily to reduce the micromanagement aspect of the game. Players who aren't fuzzed by the micromanagement workload can not employ either system. Those who want to reduce micromanagement can employ either or both systems.

Auto convoy has the advantage over continuous supply of not wasting supply or fuel. This is because it is entirely driven by demand factors hence it only visits participating bases which have a supply/fuel shortfall. As the participating bases should be well away from the frontlines they will be occupied by few units and their supply/fuel demands will not result in spoilage.
Continuous supply convoys are not demand driven. They will continue to dump supply/fuel, without regard to the spoilage limit, essentially until the player stops the operation.

It is the responsibility of the player to understand the ramifications of their actions. This is always the case, not just with regard to auto convoy or continuous supply. Just because these two features do not generate boomskis is no reason to misuse them. Its like players who don't bother understanding that in AE aircraft can only have one device attached to their centreline hardpoint, then complain when they discover the Vildebeest drop tank device and torpedo device are centreline attached, hence one can have one device but not both.

To remove any doubt, I am not advocating one way or the other as to whether Auto Convoy or Continuous Supply should be utilised. There are pros and cons for their use. All I am saying is unless either system is properly set up, sub optimal results ensue. To date almost all commentary regarding Auto Convoys emanates from players who do not set it up properly.

TFs created under the Automatic Convoy system have always, subject to certain conditions, been capable of returning back to San Francisco, Colombo or Osaka, with raw materials. This state of affairs has always been obvious from:

(a) s.15.5 of the manual
(b) posts dated 19 July 2009 and 8 August 2010 from Don Bowen
(c) post dated 2 January 2011 from michaelm75au
(d) patch #6, code change fix #71
(e) January 2011 explanation from michaem75au in various posts regarding the circumstances which led to (d) above
(f) players posting their Operations Reports which list specific TFs loading resources

Up to a point, I can understand players who aren't interested in using the Auto Convoy system not doing any of the above homework but where is the excuse for those actually interested in the system to not do their research. There is no compelling reason why I should do their work, especially when zero facts have been provided to support the assertion that raw materials are not carried on the return trip.

For the benefit of those who have tried to be helpful in this thread, I will point out the following pertinent conditions.

1. The Auto Convoy system is entirely operated by the computer. The only human input is in selecting the participating bases and providing the ships.

2. Based on demand, processed goods (supplies/fuel) are carried on the outward trip to participating bases. For the return trip from that base, the same TF may load raw materials (resources/oil) under certain circumstances.

3. Only those raw materials surplus to local requirements are potentially available to be loaded for the return trip. Before you ask, no I won't state how the surplus is determined. The devs have had many opportunities to disclose that threshold if they were inclined to do so.

4. Loading of any return cargo is dependent on the TF being actually docked. As the system is operated by the computer the standard rules for auto docking apply, the player cannot manually force docking.

5. Originally whether a return cargo was taken on board was dependent solely on checks at that base. The patch #6 change introduced a further check to take into account the raw material stocks held at the originating base (that is San Francisco, Colombo or Osaka) as appropriate. If a bug has been introduced, you can thank the Allied players who convinced michaelm75au that San Francisco did not need the delivery of raw materials.

6. Irrespective of whether a base has surplus raw materials, or the TF can dock at the port, not all bases qualify to provide a return cargo. Qualification is dependent on regional location. Again, before you ask, no I won't state how the qualification is determined. The devs have had many opportunities to disclose the regional boundaries if they were inclined to do so.

7. Finally there is the obvious point that the returning TF must contain ships possessing appropriate cargo holds which can carry the surplus raw materials.

With zero facts provided, I see absolutely no bug being in play. Merely the appropriate conditions not being met.

whole thread can be found here
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1#p4656471

[Ambassador]

Frankly, quoting Alfred is not always the best of ideas. He didn’t play the game. Extensive knowledge of the manual and what has been said/written by the Devs on the forum, but he didn’t play, and so stated errors in the most sanctimonious way (for example, in the ship repair 101, regarding the cost in repair points of different types of damage).

In the same thread you linked to, esteemed forum members (and real players !) Dili and Lowpe have extensively stated that the AI did not properly work the AC. Sending empty TF to pick ressources and supply TF returning empty, from and to the same ports. A human player would be efficient, and use the same TF to bring supply in and take ressources out. I personally have seen (when I was using that feature) the AI include twice more escorts than transports in some TF while at the same time sending unescorted TF from the same port.

Same can be seen once you have played the AI enough time. If you open the game from the opposite side, you see a lot of TF whose journeys make no sense. The only good moves are those scripted by Andy Mac, but left to itself, the AI is crap.
Same can be seen if you set the submarine operations to AI-control. In fact, if you don’t play at least on Hard difficulty (which helps the AI with supply cheats), the AI will shoot itself in the foot through bad logistics.

And this is without even mentioning the submarine threat, as the auto-convoys will take no counter-measures to avoid those (and the paths picked by the AI are extremely predictable), and the AI is fond of micro-convoys (ten three-ship convoys give a submarine more chances to intercept them, leading to higher losses, than a single thirty-ship convoy whose stronger escort may actually lead to a mission-kill for the sub, if not a real kill).

So, yes, auto-convoys will work, but inefficiently so (and dangerously if you have not sunk all enemy warships already), and the amount of micromanagement taken off the player amounts to maybe five or ten minutes once or twice per game-month.

[mind_messing]

In this post, I would like to demonstrate how someone can appear to be informed, while actually being completely ignorant.

Example 1:

Frankly, quoting Alfred is not always the best of ideas.

A strong, authoritative opening statement which is well crafted to carry the unwary.

However, anyone with an understanding of AE will find this statement - frankly - laughable.

Example 2:

He didn’t play the game.

In keeping with the theme of authoritative statements, a second one.

Note, however, the absence of any evidence to support this position. Important also to highlight the challenges in how one would produce this evidence - unless Ambassador has an ability to monitor every AE game ever played? An unlikely proposition.

Example 3:

Extensive knowledge of the manual and what has been said/written by the Devs on the forum, but he didn’t play, and so stated errors in the most sanctimonious way (for example, in the ship repair 101, regarding the cost in repair points of different types of damage).

Emphasis is mine.

Here, one can see the established theme continued. Note the appearance here of evidence of the most superficial nature - one which would appear to support the statement.

Note, however, the exceptionally vague articulation of these "stated errors".

Example 4:

In the same thread you linked to, esteemed forum members (and real players !) Dili and Lowpe have extensively stated that the AI did not properly work the AC.

Emphasis mine.

Note the logical leap - experiential knowledge is seen as being of greater value, and I will refer the reader to the points in example 2 above.

I shall stop there as four examples in as many lines seems sufficient enough to make my point that Ambassador should consider more refined methods for advertising his manure spreading operation.

[littleike]

Frankly, quoting Alfred is not always the best of ideas. He didn’t play the game. Extensive knowledge of the manual and what has been said/written by the Devs on the forum, but he didn’t play, and so stated errors in the most sanctimonious way (for example, in the ship repair 101, regarding the cost in repair points of different types of damage).

Not always a good teacher is also a good player as not always a good motor engineer is a good driver but this don't minimize their
knowledge of how things works. Everyone make errors but Alfred errors are a so little perentage related to the other mass of useful informations he posted, that they don't allow to not consider him as a strong reference.

Don't think i have not well understood your advice due to your player experience. I am sure everyone will agree that no
AI script can sobstitute a human player, but this is not in conflict with other ways to automate some operations that game offer and that other players could find useful to use.

[Edmon]

Please post respectfully at all times, guys.

Writing monologues about what another forum member is or is not, is against our rules and further behaviour along these lines will lead to warnings.

Thanks.

[Chris21wen]

I never use auto convoys, I don't trust the AI to send them where I want them.

I use a hub approach for logisitics sending large or medium sized CS convoys from the main supply/fuel bases to the larger bases closer to the front line but not within air strick range (mostly). Larger base, such as Sydney, Brisbane, Auckland & PH, get large CS convoys with medium CS going to the lieks of Noumea, Suva, etc. With these bases you don't have to worry about spoilage; (I've never had a problem with it despite what been writen here) just build them up to over 10.

Examples of which would be from the west coast to Sydney, Brisbane, Auckland, Noumea, PH, Karachi, Colombo, etc. Judicious use of waypionts, refueling depots and routing keeps risks at minimium but these TFs will run away from threats if they are known. The refueling depots (with AOs )themselves are kept supplied by fuel CS, like Christmass Is. Spoilage not a problem as other TF can drain a lot if nearly empty.

I also use smaller CS to supply base closer to the front but only if they have decent air cover, I.e. Brisbane-Port Moresby. But mainly use manual convoys.

Keeping track of any transport convoy is essential both knowing where they are going from/to and supply quanties carried, stored etc. I find it useful to use the name TF ability to show where and what they are carrying such as LA to PH f.

Mostly how you play the game comes from experience but common sense plays a part. Posters on this forum are telling you how they play it, sometimes the advice has ideas you've never thought of and turn out good, other times not so much, but ultimaetly it's your game so do you own thing.

[RangerJoe]

Mostly how you play the game comes from experience but common sense plays a part. Posters on this forum are telling you how they play it, sometimes the advice has ideas you've never thought of and turn out good, other times not so much, but ultimaetly it's your game so do you own thing.

Very good advice!