Can the map of Australia be improved?

[pompack]

I agree completely esteban.

The Darwin-Borneo attack axis was a valid option that was explored at the time. However the world-wide shipping shortage in 43-43 apparantly ruled it out; it is unlikely that this approach would have been abandoned if a major rail link could have been constructed to Darwin within a reasonable time.

In dealing with hypothetical infrastructure improvements, I fully agree with leaving the Alice-Darwin link as a road. It was much closer to a trail than a road in 41, but there was a major roadbuilding effort that upgraded it to road status (although I discovered only last week on one of the liks above that it was still shut down at the Darwin end during the rainy season). Just an aside on the quality of the Darwin-Alice link, according to Manchester, Mac wanted to travel south from Darwin by road, but the doctor accompanying them told Mac that the route was so bad there was significant danger that his son would not survive the trip.

Perhaps there is a compromise for the map that would link Darwin and Townsville with a road broken at a couple of points with a single hex trail instead of rail. This would allow a trickle of supply for defensive purposes yet still require holding PM to protect a Townsville-Darwin sea link if you wanted to mount a major offensive northward from Darwin.

[stubby331]

IF the Australain Federal Govt decided on 7th Dec 41 to put the rail through to Darwin with all speed its likely that the thing MIGHT have been finished by the end of 1944 and thats being generous. We are talking about massive distances over some pretty rough country.

I think that the Darwin - Alice Track shouyld be represented as just that - a track which should have its capacity to supply capped (which historically is pretty much right).

I think any other road/rail option just makes it too easy for the allies to build up at Darwin and just steamroll through the SRA in mid 43 - game over.....

600 resources!!! whats that about? The only thing that the Northern territory produced at that time was Cattle, Crocodile skins and fish.. there were some small mines but we are not talking pillar of industry - YES there are resources but in 1941 they were in the main still undiscovered in the ground.

IF the allies want a substantial base at Darwin - fine, but having a rail/decent road with automatic supply coming through just gives it to them on a platter....

FYI the Darwin -Alice rail link was finished at the end last year - 2003!!!!! The final push took IIRC just over 2 years to complete (with the latest tracklaying technology), but, I could be wrong, it might have taken longer....

[akbrown]

Here is a third version of my suggested map of Australia.

The main thing I have done is to add in the town of Charleville, West of Brisbane, with its railway line. This town formed part of the 'Brereton Route' which was the route taken for ferrying aircraft to Darwin from Brisbane, via Charleville, Cloncurry and Daly Waters (also added). I am not sure whether the new bases should be dot bases or have small initial airfields (some are drawn as dot bases on my map).

Since the road between Alice Springs and Darwin was upgraded in 1942 I have left it as a road, not a track.

Prompted by comments on this board I have also had a quick look at the resource and industry levels for the Australian bases, and they do seem a bit strange. The huge supply of resources in Darwin, not to mention Derby and Cooktown, doesn't seem right to me either. I have already added in Broken Hill, and it should provide a large number of resources, due to the huge amount of mining that was done there. The same goes for Cloncurry, to represent the nearby mining centre of Mount Isa (opened in the 1920s I believe). Perth also seems to be a bit too big, both in resources and heavy industry.

I have attempted to rebalance all of the production values for the Australian bases, going from my own 'gut feeling' of what the values should be. In addition I have had a go at modifying some of the port and airfield sizes and fortification levels. A lot of these seemed to be too high, especially for the bases in the 'top end'. Were these bases so developed at the start of the war? More research is needed, and/or some input from people more knowledgable than myself about the Australian infrastructure during WW2.

In doing the rebalancing of production values I have tried to keep the totals close to the current ones, so as not to shift play balance to any great extent. In time, as some campaign games are completed, this may need to be revisited, but we will have to wait and see. I have added in a table of the current values for the bases, and my suggested new values below.

Someone also mentioned that New Zealand lacked production capacity completely. I have put in some recommended values for Auckland, which represents NZ as a whole. I have no idea what, if any, effect this would have on gameplay. Perhaps someone who knows more about the game than I do can comment? Is this a waste of time? Or would there be unintended consequences?

I would welcome any comments from others as to whether they think these values look OK, or whether they should be changed further, or left alone.

Code: Select all

 Current Bases
 
 Base          Oil   Res    HI   Man   Port    Air  Fort
 ----          ---   ---    --   ---   ----    ---  ----
 Perth          50   600   600     8   5(5)    3(5)    5
 Broome                                3(3)    3(5)    3
 Derby               300           1   4(2)    3(5)    3
 Wyndham                               4(2)    3(5)    3
 Darwin              300           1   5(3)    4(5)    3
 Alice Springs                                 3(5)    2
 Thurs Island                          1(1)    1(1)    0
 Cooktown            300           1   2(3)    1(3)    3
 Cairns                                5(5)    3(5)    3
 Townsville                            5(5)    3(5)    3
 Chart Towers                                  6(9)    3
 Rockhampton         600           1   4(5)    4(5)    3
 Brisbane       25   300   300     6   6(9)    8(9)    5
 Newcastle           420   420     4   1(1)    1(4)    0
 Sydney              600   600    22  10(9)    8(6)    8
 Canberra            300    30     1           5(5)    3
 Melbourne           300   300    20  10(9)    8(6)    8
 Geelong             120   120     1   1(1)    1(4)    0
 Devonport                             4(3)    3(3)    3
 Hobart                                4(3)    3(3)    3
 Adelaide            300   240     6   5(5)    4(5)    3
 Whyalla             600   300     1   1(1)    1(4)    0
 Auckland NZ                           6(6)    6(6)    5 
 
 TOTAL          75  5040  2910    73 86(81) 85(113)   72
 
 Proposed Bases
 
 Base          Oil   Res    HI   Man   Port    Air  Fort
 ----          ---   ---    --   ---   ----    ---  ----
 Perth               400   200     7   5(5)    3(5)    3
 Broome                                1(3)    2(5)    1
 Derby                                 1(2)    1(5)    1
 Wyndham                               1(2)    1(5)    1
 Darwin               10               4(3)    4(5)    3
 Alice Springs  75                             1(4)    0
 Thurs Island                          1(1)    1(1)    0
 Cooktown                              2(3)    1(3)    1
 Cairns               10               5(5)    3(5)    1
 Townsville          100           1   5(5)    3(5)    3
 Chart Towers                                  6(9)    1
 Rockhampton         250    60     1   4(5)    4(5)    3
 Brisbane            350   300     6   6(9)    8(9)    5
 Newcastle           350   200     4   1(1)    1(5)    3
 Sydney              600   750    20  10(9)    8(6)    5
 Canberra            300    30     4           4(5)    0
 Melbourne           500   650    17  10(9)    8(6)    5
 Geelong             100   150     3   1(1)    1(5)    3
 Devonport            10           1   4(3)    2(3)    1
 Hobart               30    30     2   4(3)    3(3)    2
 Adelaide            250   240     5   5(5)    4(5)    3
 Whyalla             600   200         1(1)    1(4)    1
 Auckland NZ         200   200    20   6(6)    6(6)    3 
 Albany               30           1   3(5)    1(5)    1
 Geraldton                         1   1(1)    1(5)    1           
 Katherine            10                       1(5)    0
 Daly Waters                                   1(5)    0
 Cloncurry           400                       1(5)    0
 Coen                                          0(5)    0
 Charleville          10                       1(5)    0                   
 Broken Hill         600                       1(4)    0
 
 TOTAL          75  5110  3010    73 81(87) 83(153)   51
 

[mogami]

Hi Several points. I'm not trying to provoke a great debate. If you move that many HQ to a base the base will draw supply from other bases regardless of railroads or not. (Your telling your logistical system that Darwin is the main base for those HQ. HQ draw supply towards them)
Airfield sizex50 is the max number of aircraft that can operate from a base. Once you have 250 support points you don't need any more. If the Allies make such a major effort there they have to weaken some other point. I think they left Darwin alone because it leads no where. Also it is exposed to attack much more then the bases shielded by New Guinea. If you try to make a major effort from Darwin the Japanese will counter from Kendari and Ambonia. Still it is a perfectly legimate effort to make if you can afford the resources. 30k supply is not enough to support a sustained effort by heavy bombers. (By having the HQ there you will however drain the supply from other bases before you run out. )

Just for fun try using Darwin as a major base early in a PBEM game. (I mean make sure you keep lots of ships in port)

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi Several points. I'm not trying to provoke a great debate. If you move that many HQ to a base the base will draw supply from other bases regardless of railroads or not. (Your telling your logistical system that Darwin is the main base for those HQ. HQ draw supply towards them)
Airfield sizex50 is the max number of aircraft that can operate from a base. Once you have 250 support points you don't need any more. If the Allies make such a major effort there they have to weaken some other point. I think they left Darwin alone because it leads no where. Also it is exposed to attack much more then the bases shielded by New Guinea. If you try to make a major effort from Darwin the Japanese will counter from Kendari and Ambonia. Still it is a perfectly legimate effort to make if you can afford the resources. 30k supply is not enough to support a sustained effort by heavy bombers. (By having the HQ there you will however drain the supply from other bases before you run out. )

Just for fun try using Darwin as a major base early in a PBEM game. (I mean make sure you keep lots of ships in port)

I think the main point being made by those who want the new map, or at least the new infrastructure model, is that regardless of HQs being present in Darwin, sufficient supplies could not be brought in by land...shipping is necessary. At the moment, direct shipping to Darwinis not required.

[mogami]

Hi, So prewar everything moved into and out of Darwin by sea? Darwin was harder to supply then the steppes of central asia? Australia confronted by war had no truck and no driver capable of making the trip? Could I move some elephants from India or Camels from north Africa and then supply Darwin overland?

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi Several points. I'm not trying to provoke a great debate. If you move that many HQ to a base the base will draw supply from other bases regardless of railroads or not. (Your telling your logistical system that Darwin is the main base for those HQ. HQ draw supply towards them)
Airfield sizex50 is the max number of aircraft that can operate from a base. Once you have 250 support points you don't need any more. If the Allies make such a major effort there they have to weaken some other point. I think they left Darwin alone because it leads no where. Also it is exposed to attack much more then the bases shielded by New Guinea. If you try to make a major effort from Darwin the Japanese will counter from Kendari and Ambonia. Still it is a perfectly legimate effort to make if you can afford the resources. 30k supply is not enough to support a sustained effort by heavy bombers. (By having the HQ there you will however drain the supply from other bases before you run out. )

Just for fun try using Darwin as a major base early in a PBEM game. (I mean make sure you keep lots of ships in port)

True, the HQs will draw supplies anyway. But there is a big difference between losing about 25%-30% of those supplies to "friction" on the train from Townsville, and losing 70-80% of them over a road from Alice Springs, and losing a further 20% getting them to Alice Springs in the first place. Oz starts the game in something of a supply hole, as it produces no oil, and the only place the Allies can really (at least past early 42) get some is from the U.S. So the added friction of having to use the Alice Springs/Darwin road would be important.

Also, those two 300 resource centers currently in North Oz produce 600 supplies per day. Not an insignificant amount there.

As it is right now, you can run tanker convoys into Oz, run Aussie industry flat out (probably easier to do that and run the U.S. below capacity, than to run the U.S. flat out and transport all the resulting supplies to Oz) and supply Darwin overland. Any remaining U.S. supply convoys go to Townsville or Perth in 1942. You don't even need to take these in range of fighter escort from Timor or Amboina. You don't even need to keep Port Moresby and Thursday Island. Because with the railroad, you can drop stuff at Townsville and easily move it overland to Darwin.

With the current Aussie map, you are already in B-17/24 range of Amboina and Sorong from Darwin. So you can already bomb the oil and resource centers there. And of course you are in range of Timor, from all the North Oz bases.

There is a chain of islands leading North from Darwin. The first couple can only be built to size 3 airfields, but they are within range of fighter and dive bomber support from Darwin. The third one is about 8 hexes northeast of Darwin, and can be built to a level 5 airfield, large enough for your B-25 skip bombers with P-38 escorts. The next stop after that island is Amboina and Sorong themselves.

So, if I were Allied in a PBEM game, I would be sorely tempted to abandon the Solomons/New Guinea campaign, and throw all that, plus whatever can be spared from India, into a push north from Darwin. Against a good Japanese player, who will fight you tooth and nail to keep you out of the SRA, you wouldn't get much farther than those first couple small islands north of Darwin in 1942. But come 1943, when you can put Corsairs on those islands, your speed of advance will pick up quickly.

I would say that Timor, Sorong and Amboina is a doable advance in 43'. And in 1944, the Phillipines, Borneo and Java. In 1945, Palembang, Singapore, Saigon, Hong Kong, Formosa and victory.

[mogami]

Hi 600 supply will not maintain a divisions daily requirments. If Australian supply is moved to Darwin (regardless of loss via friction) then other bases will be short. While Darwin might at the start suck up the excess supply to the south and south east over time this source will dry up. Australia does not produce excess supply. Moving oil there will allow the heavy industry to produce more but this will be used by the added units sent to Australia is daily requirments. (flying aircraft uses more supply then Australia can produce and maintain normal daily requirments.)

The real problem then is when the Allied player gets around to importing supply. It willl move north more efficently then could be actully supposed but no matter how difficult you make overland movement the allied player can (and if he makes a piority) will move enough outside supply to use Darwin. The Allied player can "abandon" New Guinea but what if the Japanese player does not go along with this? The ALlies do not possess the surplus of men and equipment to pile into any one base before 1943. And then it does not matter. The allies can pull all their supply into Darwin if they choose in 1942 but don't be amazed when the Japanese simply send 100 Betty/Nell to Darwin and blow it up.

As Japan I would be grateful to any Allied player who tried to fight an air campaign in early 1942 in areas I could employ my superiority with ease. If Darwin is easy to support because of 600 resource and size 3 airfields what about Japans size 6,7,8,9 airfields on bases with more supply production. (and safer transport routes) If the railroad ran all the way to Darwin the Japanese could and will out supply the allies in 1942. And they are looking for a place to employ their superioirty. Leaving Darwin as a back water denies them a worth while target. Placing all your eggs into that basket will have the Japanese squealing in delight like school girls.

When I run the Allies I send a convoy from San Francisco to Pearl in the first month that contains in excess of 1,000,000 supply. and 1,000,000 fuel. The problem then is only can it be moved safely from there to Australia? But even such vast amounts are not enough to fight for more then a few months unless a steady supply is maintained. The more LCU/AirgroupsI send to Australia the more supply it will require. Having the supply is not the problem. If I allow the Japanese to cut my route by ignoring the South Pacific I doom any chance I have of ever using Darwin as a base for operations into the SRA.

If Darwin was a vast complex of airfields and resource I would have to defer using it unless I first secured my connection with my major supply source (The USA) The Allied player will not have the liberty of ignoring what the Japanese are up to. (However they can and will both cut your supply line and engage you in a campaign in the lower SRA)

30k supply will allow 100 fighters to fly CAP for nearly a year. However if you are building facilities, feeding LCU and conducting bombing missions with 4 engine bombers the supply will run out. A 72 bomber group of B-17 require a size 6 airfield and will use 288 supply per mission. (30k will sustain the group for 3 months but once again this is only if no other supply requirments exist in the hex) The combination of CAP and Offenise missions daily supply requirments will drain Australia of all excess supply before May 1942. May 1942 is about the time the Japanese will begin their big Operation.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, So prewar everything moved into and out of Darwin by sea? Darwin was harder to supply then the steppes of central asia? Australia confronted by war had no truck and no driver capable of making the trip? Could I move some elephants from India or Camels from north Africa and then supply Darwin overland?

C,mon, Mog. All one needs to do is run massive supply convoys from Karachi and voila, depending on how many HQs are in Darwin or Northern OZ, we have a strategic jump off point for an invasion of DEI. No need to send a single ship to northern Oz. Same goes for Alaska as it turns out. Based on the info players are supplying, it looks like we simply did not research the map enough. Should be fixable. Let's just gather real data.

[mogami]

Hi, Massive supply convoy from Karachi? Please promise me you will play me in a PBEM game. Once again I am interested in seeing how the Allies jump anywhere in early 1942. You don't suppose any such convoy could avoid detection do you. How long does it take for a 30kt TF located at say Truk to move to engage a 10kt convoy spotted north of Malaya headed south? (Ignoring for the moment the 21 hex range of the Betty/Nell landbased bomber) (In the Manner of D.H. Hills pre American Civil War textbook on mathamatics) compute the hex where the bulk of such TF would be sunk.

[timtom]

Welcome home, Mogami, looking forward to your first AAR,

'Far as I can tell nobody's really worried about Allied offensives in early '42. Who on earth would try something like that, anyway? Alright, the Banana, probably [:)]. As I see it, the main trust of the argument is:

1) Oz map misrepresents historical situation (in my book a good enough reason for wanting to change it, and fast too)

2) Knock-on effect is to allow the Allied to execute main drive from Darwin without the logistical restraints historically in place, whether in 1942 or any other year. Furthermore, this can be done even without holding PM. If you're implying that after mid-42 its academic whether there's a railroad or not due to Allied preponderance, why play the game at all. Japan is doomed no matter what one does.

3) We might even hypothetise a IJA blitz-krieg style charge southbound down the railroad.

4) Surely the reason we're here and not on the HOI forum is that we're attracted to the degree of historical accuracy in the game. The design will necessarily have to strike a number of compromises, and its been suggested that the railroad to Darwin, as well as the whole Alaskan business, is in place so simulate coastal shipping. If the choice is between two not entirely historic compromises, then I'd go the one that favours the Japanese (gamebalance) and forces limitations/tough choices on the Allied player (gameplay). Anyone who wants his Darwin offensive still can, but he'll have to sweat for it.

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

The combination of CAP and Offenise missions daily supply requirments will drain Australia of all excess supply before May 1942. May 1942 is about the time the Japanese will begin their big Operation.

I am not saying that the Allies should ignore the Aussie/US supply line, far from it. But The Allies would not have to go farther north than Luganville in my plan. However, the map is of such a size, that even if the Japanese took Suva and Noumea, you can still run convoys along the southern map edge, out of range of Bettys flying out of those bases.

Same thing with the route from Karachi. From Sumatra, it would be difficult to stop, and maybe even spot, allied convoys running from Karachi along the western map edge.

Yes, the Japanese could bomb Darwin. But with the land links that are in place, even if you destroyed 20K supplies in the attack, it would be replaced within a couple days. I am factoring that kind of Japanese resistance into my estimates. By mid-1942, you could pretty much have a lid on Darwin and the other North Oz bases, which are out of A6M range from Timor and Amboina. If you want to fly your Betties into 40-50 fighters flying CAP over Darwin and Broome, so you can hit supplies that can be replaced by rail within 48 hours, then I want to play you. You can sortie KB aginst North Oz, but against size 5+ airfields with rail connections, I am going to wear down your carriers long before you wear down my airfields.

The supply destruction issue you bring up is a bit of a straw man. You have played UV enough to know how much supply is lost when the Allies try to build island-hopping bases in Irau, Russel Island and the Santa Cruz islands. Most of what is landed is bombed away, and a goodly amount of what might have been landed is sunk by Betties before it can get ashore. Sometimes, supply and reinforcement convoys to those bases are annihialated entirely. However, even with these problems, once those bases are built, it is only a matter of time for the Japanese. In UV, the only question is whether or not you can keep the bases undeveloped long enough to win on points at the end of 1943, at least if you can't get the Japanese auto-victory.

In the "Darwin Scenario" you don't even have to worry about those convoys really. There are no convoys running to North Oz at all. Not at least until you start island hopping, and then all you have to run is really fuel for ships. You can still rail enough supplies into North Oz to run the initial stages of your island hopping campaign. And those supplies can be protected by fighter cover all the way up the island chain heading north from Darwin. LCUs can march up the railway from Townsville and Perth. No need to put them on ships until it is time to leave North Oz for the islands.

Unlike the Solomons, you don't need to commit your carriers to protect this axis of advance, because there are no moats to leapfrog, unlike the Santa Cruz/Irau gap in UV. You save the U.S. carriers for protecting the Aussie/US link, patiently build up North Oz, and the couple small airfields within fighter range of Darwin. Then in 1943, you start seizing size 4+ airfield sites in DEI.

The only time you would really need your carriers in the DEI would be when you decide to go for Timor. Once you are established there, you can use mostly land-based fighter cover to march towards Java.

Heck, I would even do the traditional Central Pacific advance at this point. Either Gilberts/Marshalls/Marianas, Wake/Marcus/Bonins, or Wake/Marianas. Put even more pressure on Japan's economic engine by setting up the B-29 bases and turning them loose on Japanese industry.

By contrast, the Japanese supply line to Kendari, Timor and Amboina is far less secure. Kendari has a huge resource center there, so it is ok. But military reinforcements for all of those areas have to be moved in by ship, where they can be hit by submarine or long range bombers. Supplies bombed away in Timor and Amboina would take weeks to replace, not days as is the case for the Allies.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, So prewar everything moved into and out of Darwin by sea?

Probably most stuff, yes, because it would have been 10x cheaper to ship goods directly from Eastern Australia to Darwin, rather than railing them to Alice Springs and trucking them 1,000 miles over dirt roads/ tracks. However, there was probably precious little traffic by either route, since Darwin's prewar population was only a couple thousand people.

Darwin was harder to supply then the steppes of central asia?

No - because Darwin could be supplied by sea. But overland, yes. The Trans-Siberian RR ran through Central Asia. No RR connected Darwin to the rest of Australia.

Australia confronted by war had no truck and no driver capable of making the trip?

Yes, there was a truck and a driver -- Stan, I think, was his name.

[mogami]

Hi, Now I'm not understanding all this. If the map is incorrect it will be ifxed. But even if we cut the lines to Darwin completly it will not alter any of the Allied ability to use Darwin exactly the same way you suggest.

I do not conncur in your assement about allied convoys being able to evade interception but that does not change anything. (no matter how round about you go you eventually have to go to a base to unload. If that base or the local route to that base is in range of enemy LBA then you've only moved the hex you are attacked in)

Darwin is in range of enemy LBA (normal not extended) Allied night fighters are in short supply. (I think the Brits have one in Malaya at start that can be moved but I'm not particulary afraid of it) There is not a large number of good fighter groups for the Allies to use early on. I'm more then willing to risk my 6 CV with 120+ A6M2 prior to May 1942 if the target is worth it. (If I think I can inflict more damage then I sustain I will come)

I don't doubt the value of Darwin after mid 1943. I advocte such use. My only point on entry into this discussion was that the effects of the mistaken rail connection were being inflated beyond what they actually would do. 300 allied aircraft at Darwin bother me not a whit as long as I can find via recon/probes where aircover is lacking as a result of such concentration at Darwin. Japan has in excess of 300 long range medium (heavy to Japan) bombers. The most pressing issue for Japan after the SRA is finding a place to base them that provides targets worth risking them prior to the Allies attaining air equality in numbers and superioty in quality. Darwin in this period is ideal for the Japanese.

I also think the actual supply generation in Australia independant of imports is being inflated. Offensive operations required much more supply then do defensive. Oz can support it's own defense. Darwin cannot be used without a large influx from outside. Karachi is not my first choice because as the ALlies I have a massive supply demand in India/Burma/China (only a trickle gets through to CHina but this trickle is vital)

[Blackhorse]

Original: Mogami
I also think the actual supply generation in Australia independant of imports is being inflated. Offensive operations required much more supply then do defensive. Oz can support it's own defense. Darwin cannot be used without a large influx from outside. Karachi is not my first choice because as the ALlies I have a massive supply demand in India/Burma/China (only a trickle gets through to CHina but this trickle is vital)

We agree. IRL, to build up Darwin for offensive operations, the allies would have had to send convoys of supply-laden ships into harm's way. In the game, all the allies have to do is pile supplies from the US West Coast into Sydney, and -- as you've pointed out -- as long as there are enough HQs in Darwin, the supplies will be sucked in over an uninterceptable (is that even a word?) and historically non-existant railroad.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Massive supply convoy from Karachi? Please promise me you will play me in a PBEM game. Once again I am interested in seeing how the Allies jump anywhere in early 1942. You don't suppose any such convoy could avoid detection do you. How long does it take for a 30kt TF located at say Truk to move to engage a 10kt convoy spotted north of Malaya headed south? (Ignoring for the moment the 21 hex range of the Betty/Nell landbased bomber) (In the Manner of D.H. Hills pre American Civil War textbook on mathamatics) compute the hex where the bulk of such TF would be sunk.

I'll play ya anytime,Mog.[:)] I was referring to an AI game I tested and how easily it was for Darwin to be supplied by rail without use of shipping docking at Darwin. Of course the map border makes convoys dangerous as we don't have the ability to run from The Cape of Good Hope to Melbourne. Convoys from NA also vulnerable without Bora Bora. Waypoints would help as smaller convoys could then be run frequently without peeing off the player because of AI routing of CS convoys.

[mogami]

Hi, As long as so much as a trail exists that connects Darwin to the south it will draw supply. The problem no matter what type of connection is just how much is wasted.
It remains to be seen whether the allies can move enough that dispite waste they can build up supply levels in Darwin. However also understand that only excess supply is drawn. The rest of Oz would claim it's share before the remainder began moving towards Darwin and nothing if Darwin was already at it's supply level. (why you see the amount rise and then remain constant) Some one can compute how much supply needs to be brought to Sydney to supply Darwin at combat levels. (I bet is is not that hard for the allies to maintain)

I still find it hard to believe that had the allies decided on using Darwin they would have been unable to do so. They used much harder places. Darwins draw back for me remains the fact it is inside enemy LBA range. As Japan I expect to fly constant recon there and no night will pass with out a port attack if I so much as see the anchor symbol

[DrewMatrix]

In my limited experience Darwin in late Feb is actually full of fuel, supplies, oil, resources etc. I moved all I could from DEI to keep the Japanese from grabbing it. Supplies and fuel are flowing the other way.

Darwin also (late Feb 1942) has lots of very experienced anti shipping units (small, mostly 7 planes or so but tough), the remnants of the DEI Airforce that have moved there. But they did wind up somehow with a 48 unit of Exp 71 P40Es too.

Anyhow I may use Darwin to move north, rather than go through New Guinea, because fuel and supplies are piling up on the docks, not getting there overland

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

I still find it hard to believe that had the allies decided on using Darwin they would have been unable to do so. They used much harder places. Darwins draw back for me remains the fact it is inside enemy LBA range. As Japan I expect to fly constant recon there and no night will pass with out a port attack if I so much as see the anchor symbol

I think we agree with you on that Mog.

The issue is that with the existing map, the Allies can do that without risking any shipping north of the line Perth-Brisbane and without paying a prohibitive supply "wastage" charge for overland movement.

[timtom]

Just an aside: If the wastage is 100% will it still draw supply?