CV refuling

[byron13]

I'm with Subchaser and Panzerleader. There should be a port size limit on refueling ships. Or at least a speed modifier: if you want to top off the New Jersey with 5 gallon cans, go right ahead, but expect to be anchored for awhile.


BUT ONLY AS A PATCH AFTER THE GAME IS RELEASED!

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Subchaser

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

A question has occured to me just now. REading the AARs from Raver and Luskan makes me wonder how Luskan manages to move his CV forces in such a dashing manner. Is there a huge AO TF tagging along, or is it simply a matter of moving slowly enough to conserve fuel. In UV, this has always been a problem for me. CV TFs seem to have very short legs. Keeping them "on station" becomes nearly impossible after a week or so.

It also helps that huge fleets like KB can zip into a size 1 "port" (fishing wharf with a drum and pump system) which somehow has huge fuel reserves to refuel/rearm in a turn and zoom out. One of the few remaining logistical anomalies which exist are the naval base issues (capacity/operations limits/logistic restrictions), apparently to assist the AI. I'd like to see this changed somehow...

Ron, if they won’t change this, we still can get rid of these port/refueling anomalies with a help of house rules set, it require more micro management but I prefer to waste more time rather than to see 6 large carriers refuel in just one day in Tulagi harbor being absolutely invulnerable. Paradoxical WitP feature that can spoil the whole fun [:@]

Excellent. A decent size for me to allow refueling of major warships would be 5 and up. Other than that, a tanker used as a depot in smaller ports (to simulate storage) is required for lesser ships. After all, this is why AO 1 Kanawha was present at Tulagi when she was sunk in 43.

[Mr.Frag]

I've always wondered about this. KB takes multiple tankers worth to refuel. A size 3 port can not hold multiple tankers worth of fuel. Whats the problem here?

Tulagi is a 3(3)+0(0) size.

Plugging that into the good ole' spoilage formula gives 1000+(3*3*1000) total or 10,000.

A single large TK is 16,000

Get the engineers to expand the place a bit more to a 5(3)+2(0) gives us 1000+(7*7*1000) total or 50,000 so we are up holding 3 TK's worth.

Go totally nuts and have them Yanks bring in the seabees. Max it out!

6(3)+3(0) gives us 1000+(9*9*1000) or 82,000. Wow, a whole 5 TK's worth.

I just don't see a problem here. Can someone explain what I am missing? Thats a size 6! port, there are only 3 sizes larger in the game. 5 crummy tankers worth of fuel is a problem?

[Mr.Frag]

Just for some info:

BB's in KB: 6330, 6330

CV's in KB: 5000, 5000, 3670, 3670, 8208, 5800

CA's in KB: 2950, 2950

Thats 46,238 not counting the DD's (DD's are about 1,000 for every 2)

[byron13]

You never did answer whether everything in excess of 10,000 would be lost immediately, or whether just some percentage. If it's just a percentage, the problem is that the player times things to dump a bunch of fuel oil on the beach of a deserted atoll, the next turn (after only, say, 5% is lost to spoilation) the whole fleet drops in, refuels in one day, and bugs out. While some or all of the remaining fuel may "spoil," the loss of what little is left is worth it for the ability to refuel instantly in a remote part of the ocean.

Extreme example, but that is the perceived problem. Is this not the case?

[Mr.Frag]

Never tested, but I assume it's just gone ... there is nowhere to put it so it can't just shrink by a bit a turn.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I've always wondered about this. KB takes multiple tankers worth to refuel. A size 3 port can not hold multiple tankers worth of fuel. Whats the problem here?

Tulagi is a 3(3)+0(0) size.

Plugging that into the good ole' spoilage formula gives 1000+(3*3*1000) total or 10,000.

A single large TK is 16,000

Get the engineers to expand the place a bit more to a 5(3)+2(0) gives us 1000+(7*7*1000) total or 50,000 so we are up holding 3 TK's worth.

Go totally nuts and have them Yanks bring in the seabees. Max it out!

6(3)+3(0) gives us 1000+(9*9*1000) or 82,000. Wow, a whole 5 TK's worth.

I just don't see a problem here. Can someone explain what I am missing? Thats a size 6! port, there are only 3 sizes larger in the game. 5 crummy tankers worth of fuel is a problem?

Problem 1) See any tank farms on period pictures of these atolls and bases which all have fuel reserves and facilities in the game? Only major commercial ports and naval bases had them. The smaller bases used tankers and fuel barges. I suppose the fuel storage capacity can be assumed as barges but leads to problem 2.

Problem 2) Instantaneous naval replenishment in ports. How long does it take to load AKs? Depending on size of port and size of ship, up to a week. So how can a TF with no ammo, fuel, stores (not modelled) fully rearm/restore/refuel in a fraction of a one day turn? I have even seen a TF engage an enemy TF in a friendly base hex, after having had to move to the base hex, and then be a few hexes out, with full loads of fuel and ammo for every ship! Why model the loading of supplies, fuel, personnel on AKs, APs and TKs/AOs but not the ammo and fuel for the same ships. And why differentiate loading times with port size but not when refueling/rearming?

Port size should have some effect on how many and how rapidly ships can rearm and refuel. There were only so many fuel/ammo/stores liters available, not to mention berths. Ports should have operation point maximums in lieu of capacities. Heck, air bases do.

Problem 3) Ammo should be less universal as well. I find it hard to believe that 18.1" ammo was available at any port with supplies. Heck, capture a base with supplies, park the Yammy in there the same day and voila, full magazines of 18.1" ammo. [X(] Naval bases should be differentiated from others. We have Naval Base Units but Air Base Units perform same function. Naval stores/ammo should only be available at legitimate naval bases.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: byron13

You never did answer whether everything in excess of 10,000 would be lost immediately, or whether just some percentage. If it's just a percentage, the problem is that the player times things to dump a bunch of fuel oil on the beach of a deserted atoll, the next turn (after only, say, 5% is lost to spoilation) the whole fleet drops in, refuels in one day, and bugs out. While some or all of the remaining fuel may "spoil," the loss of what little is left is worth it for the ability to refuel instantly in a remote part of the ocean.

Extreme example, but that is the perceived problem. Is this not the case?

Yepper, one of them anyway. I'm OK with the fuel storage when one assumes barges are available, but not having op point limits for ports and not differentiating between Naval Bases (specifically ammo availability) and Gilligan's Island when resupplying is more important in my opinion.

[Mr.Frag]

Yea we tossed around the port ship limit that wouldn't let you disband ships that didn't fit ... just ran out of time. I liked the idea of port size * 10 = max ships. Makes you more exposed at the smaller bases, but we sorta dealt with this by the way port attacks now work. Port has 10+ ships, bombing goes for ships instead of port.

[kaleun]

OK so there is some degree of unreality in the supply and fueling issue on the small bases; but there is a compensatory adjustment in the spoilage and the port air attack feature. Two questions: Does the 10+ ship factor apply in all ports, or just the small ones? and 2nd: Did the testers think that it affected PBEM and/or AI play?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: kaleun

OK so there is some degree of unreality in the supply and fueling issue on the small bases; but there is a compensatory adjustment in the spoilage and the port air attack feature. Two questions: Does the 10+ ship factor apply in all ports, or just the small ones? and 2nd: Did the testers think that it affected PBEM and/or AI play?

Some form of op point maximums for bases and limitations for re ammunitioning of ships is needed.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yea we tossed around the port ship limit that wouldn't let you disband ships that didn't fit ... just ran out of time. I liked the idea of port size * 10 = max ships. Makes you more exposed at the smaller bases, but we sorta dealt with this by the way port attacks now work. Port has 10+ ships, bombing goes for ships instead of port.

_GREAT_ - I always advocated something like that!

Is there a chance that this will be implemented in patching process after initial release of WitP?


Leo "Apollo11"

[Mr.Frag]

Anything is possible. [;)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Anything is possible. [;)]

Let's hope then... [;)]


Loe "Apollo11"