Can the map of Australia be improved?

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
esteban
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:47 am

RE: Road, rail to Darwin

Post by esteban »

ORIGINAL: 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)

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)

Re: Convoys avoiding detection:

The range from bases in Sumatra to the Western map edge is 17-20 hexes. At that range, a large convoy, or several running at once, would probably be spotted, but would could only be attacked by land-based air at extended range, so the damage to the convoys would be pretty acceptable, unless Kido Butai was kept in Singapore/Surabaya. If the Royal Navy or a couple escort carriers were sent in the convoy(s) the bomber losses would probably be severe. If I were Allied, I would not run a whole lot of convoys from India anyway. India needs doesn't possess anything in real excess (except maybe fuel from the dropoffs at Bombay and Karachi), and would be pressed by fighting in Burma, especially if that fighting can keep the supply route to China open.

The range from Suva and Noumea to the south map edge is 22 hexes. So unless you had Kido Butai steaming around the south map edge, or several of your submarines with Glenn float planes on them in the area, you would never even see them passing by. Even if you did see them, these convoys would be entirely out of LRA range. The only way to reliably close the U.S./Aussie link is to take Noumea, and then jump from there to take and hold large portions of New Zealand. Otherwise, there is too much space between available bases and the map edge to interdict the convoys. Plus, the bases that are taken should be tough fights.

The U.S. produces excess oil, which is what Australian industry needs most, and tons of supplies. This, and available long ranged air groups, base forces and a few infantry divisions, would be what I would send to Australia. I would reserve the bulk of U.S. fuel production for the naval war to keep the U.S./Aussie supply line open.

You mention LRA attacks on supply convoys. Thats pretty much the whole point of my argument. With the rail lines where they are, you would never have to venture into LRA range of New Guinea/Timor to get supplies and troops to North Australia. You can land them in Brisbane and Perth and march them north. If you want to save some supplies and marching time, you can enter LRA range and land them at Townsville. However, Townsville is outside fighter range from New Guinea, so your bomber losses would be severe.

Build up Norht Oz this way for until mid-42, then start island hopping. In the meantime, you consolidate the Aussie/U.S. and India/China links.

Here is the geography of the current North Oz area:

There are 4 north Oz bases. Darwin, Broome, Wyndham and Derby. All of these can support size 7+ ports and/or airfields. They are all connected by rail. (realistically, this should be road or even trail connections) Another rail line runs from Broome down to Perth, and another line from Darwin to Townsville. (these rail lines never existed, and still don't exist today)

There is also a +- 10 hex road connection from the Darwin/Townsville rail line to Alice Springs, which is connected to the rest of Australia by rail. This road link was only upgraded with a rail link in the last year, 60 years after the war ended. The wartime road link was often washed out in the rainy season, so should probably be filled in with a hex or two of trail to show that it wasn't a real, reliable road in the sense we think of.

Without this ahistorical infrastructure, North Oz would have to be supplied principally by ship. That means a lag time of a couple weeks between when supply is sent and when it arrives. With the current rail links, supply can be sent immediately, upon demand, with little loss along the way. Supply at one North Oz base can be pretty much immediately moved with almost no loss to another North Oz base.

The only approaches to the North Oz bases by sea are along the coast, North from Perth, or West from Townsville. The Townsville route is just plain deadly, even in 43/44 with long range, high quality allied fighters, the portion of the route between Thursday Island and Darwin (about 20 hexes) would be run with practically no air cover. Japanese LRA from bases on the north shore of New Guinea can cover the whole of the route. Most of the route is in fighter range from North New Guinea as well. This route could only be safely used by committing several fleet carriers to an escort.

The Perth route is safer, though not completely safe. There are no bases between Perth and Broome, so there would be little or no early warning against a Japanese task force attacking the convoys. As the convoy neared Broome, you would be within both fighter and LRA range of Kupang. In 42/early 43, with a shortage of long ranged fighters, there would be a gap of 3-4 hexes between when a convoy would enter torpedo bombing range of Kupang, and when it would be in fighter cover range from Broome. From Broome, it is another 15 hexes or so to Darwin, but you would be within fighter and LRA range of Timor the whole way. Over this stretch, the Allies would have fighter cover from the various bases.

If the ahistorical rail links between the four northern bases, and the northern bases and south Oz were removed, to get supplies to Darwin, with some risk, you would have to pretty much transport them (or the oil to make them) from the U.S., and then move them in a big hook around the south and east coast of Australia, and then halfway across the north coast as well. Then the ships carrying the supplies would have to return the same way they came, because running east from Darwin takes you into the "no air cover" zone that makes the Townsville run so dangerous.

Without the changes, the allies do not have to run supply or LCU reinforcement convoys at all. They will need fuel convoys once they start island hopping. By the time Allied offensive operations outstrip their supply/LCU rail movement to North Oz, and then to island bases, it will be sometime in mid/late 1943. Their offensive will have drastically reduced the effectiveness of, or taken, the Japanese bases on Timor, rendering the Perth supply convoy route much safer. The Townsville route will probably still be inadvisable at that time

Current distance between bases in North Oz area:

Broome to Darwin: +-15 hexes (currently all but 1-2 hexes of this is rail, the rest is road)

Broome and Derby to Kupang: 8 hexes (extended B-25/Beaufort VIc/P-38 range, normal range for B-24/17)

Wyndham to Lautem ( east Timor): 9 hexes

Darwin to Lautem: 8 hexes

Darwin to Bulla (60 pt. resource center): 9-10 hexes (normal B-17/24 range)

Darwin to Amboina/Sorong (50 pt oil centers/10 point resource centers): 11 hexes (extended B-17/24 range)

Darwin to Tenimbar Island (capable of size 3 AF): 3 hexes (normal fighter/dive bomber range)

Tenimbar to Aru Island (second size 3 AF): 2 hexes

Tenimbar to Lautem: 4 hexes (extended fighter range)

Aru to Kai Island (capable of size 5 AF): 2-3 hexes

Kai Island to Bulla: 2-3 hexes

Kai Island to Amboina: 4-5 hexes


With the railroads in place, the North Oz bases are a huge threat to the SRA. Yes, you can night bomb the North Oz bases, you can even day bomb them with fighter escort from Timor. But the supplies lost would be replaced almost automatically, via rail. I am not talking about retaking Manila in 42, or even 43. I feel that I could certainly do it in 44 though, given the infrastructure in North Oz. In 45, if the Japanese player didn't concede because nearly all his oil is in my hands or bombed into dust, I am confident that I could seize all or nearly all the high victory value sites within and bordering on the SRA, open a sea supply route to China, and win a decisive victory without using the A-bomb.

Sure, things can go wrong. My carriers could get a reverse Midway somewhere, but even though the first couple islands in the campaign would make substandard bases, in general, I like the odds. I wouldn't even have to use my carriers for most of the Darwin-based campaign, because so much of it would occur within land-based air cover range.
jrcar
Posts: 2301
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: Seymour, Australia

RE: Road, rail to Darwin

Post by jrcar »

ORIGINAL: akbrown

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
 

I don't have much problem with your revised figures, they are certainly an improvement!

It is my understanding that Melbourne was the main industrial city in Australia ahead of Sydney (this was done deliberately during the war as Sydney was seen as being to exposed to attack).

Newcastle was important, as was Whyalla (as a source of resources, that had to be sent by ship, to Newcastle).

Brisbane didn't have a lot of HI, nor did any north Queensland City.

Canberra had none :) (it was still mostly sheep paddocks) - so no resources either.

Why oil at Alice Springs? I know some oil was extracted from shale in NSW, and the exploration was done in Victoria (my grandfather was involved with that) but I've been unable to find any other references.


The key areas of HI were where the Railways had major workshops, they were one of the few places where things like tanks could be built. Most manufactured goods were imported.


Image


The map looks good, I'd be tempted to remove the road to Derby and Broome though....

Cheers

Rob
AE BETA Breaker
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by moses »

"as long as so much as a trail exists that connects Darwin to the south it will draw supply" --Mogami-- Sorry I don't know how to do the cut and paste.

I agree completely which is why the connection from N Austraila needs to be correct. If supply tranfer to N Austrailia is less efficient then the allied player has to think carefully about a rapid buid-up in the area. If for example he send large forces of aircraft into the area early in the game, then he has essentially made a decision to supply them overland which the computer will do at prohibitive cost. The general shortage of supply in Austrailia will not allow this sort of commitment. If the allied player wants to base significant force in Austrailia he will therefore have to provide at least most of their supply requiremments by sea.

As I understand the system, once you have supplied these location by sea then little supply would move via the inefficient overland route. Of course the problem then is not getting your ships sunk!!

If the overland supply link is less efficient it will be difficult for the allies to accomplish a lot there early but not impossible to use these bases later on. Once you get into 43 and 44 you should be able to get seaborne supply in if you make it a priority. Even in 42 you might be able to do it if you're careful, and of course it should be possible to get some supply there early on before the DEI is lost.

As it is the efficient land supply route to North Austrailia allows a very rapid build-up without much cost in supplies. Now I'm not saying that the allies can't base a hundred or so B-17's in North Austrailia. And I'm not saying that the allies shouldn't be able to send large ground forces to the area. I'm just saying that if he does so he should either have to establish a sea route of supplies or he should have to sustain levels of supply usage that are probably unsupportable on a long term basis.

Northern Austraila can and should remain as a possible route of attack into the JP empire. What has concerned me is that as it now stands this route appears to be the "correct" and primary route to take. The historical disadvantage of this route was the difficuty of supplying Northern Austrailia. This disadvantage should be reflected in the game.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by mogami »

Hi, I think the general agreement is the connection needs to be changed. THe hex data changes are easy. The map art requires some time. (Unless they can use the existing modified maps. Do these maps match the current hexes exactly so data can transfer?
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think the general agreement is the connection needs to be changed. THe hex data changes are easy. The map art requires some time. (Unless they can use the existing modified maps. Do these maps match the current hexes exactly so data can transfer?

MOGAMI How about admitting that the map that the game comes with reveals a very
poor degree of research on the part of 2by3? Many of the problems being talked about
here were commentted on and had corrections posted when the first screenshots were
posted. All of the potential help offered (much by people who actually live in Australia)
was ignored and the buyers had this nonsensical abortion foisted off on them instead.
I admire and respect the fellows at 2by3---but this map is a turkey and definately NOT
"thier finest hour".
moses
Posts: 2252
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:39 am

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by moses »

In reply to Mogami
Thanks. This game is awesome. It'l be great when its even better. Thanks.
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by mogami »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think the general agreement is the connection needs to be changed. THe hex data changes are easy. The map art requires some time. (Unless they can use the existing modified maps. Do these maps match the current hexes exactly so data can transfer?

MOGAMI How about admitting that the map that the game comes with reveals a very
poor degree of research on the part of 2by3? Many of the problems being talked about
here were commentted on and had corrections posted when the first screenshots were
posted. All of the potential help offered (much by people who actually live in Australia)
was ignored and the buyers had this nonsensical abortion foisted off on them instead.
I admire and respect the fellows at 2by3---but this map is a turkey and definately NOT
"thier finest hour".

Hi, Mike I think I'll pass on such an admission untill you deliver a map this size made and drawn by yourself that allows a program to run on it and after review by several thousand critical eyes has no errors reported. There are other considerations not be mentioned.
There is a limit to the number of bases. In may be in fact that the connection to Darwin was required for other then geographical accuraccy.

Consider that a more accurate map would also require aircraft and ship ranges to change depending on location. The entire China network reflects the need of the AI not accuracy.
There is a lot of distortion that is for game play. I myself will take the blame for Guadalcanal having 2 bases. I felt it was impossible to recreate the campaign fought there with just one hex. I also suggested Okinawa be two hexes because that battle could not and should not be resolved in one day or two weeks. So Okinawa was stretched.

Before you slap the Turkey label on the map. Design a game that uses one as large and contains no flaws. After you show it can be done I'll be much more ready to admit anything you like. I'll even allow you 18 months to come up with it and you can use outside art and other help.

Please don't eat my pie and between glups tell me how much it stinks.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
stubby331
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by stubby331 »

Please don't eat my pie and between glups tell me how much it stinks.

Nice analogy Mog. [:D]

There is no doubt that everyone here wants the same thing. A brilliant game.

But I suppose a few people might be feeling a bit frustrated because a lot of these Map errors had been identified way before WITP went gold.

Maybe on this one 2by3 is going to have to accept a little bit of "I told you so".

But thats not belittling the great efforts that have been made so far...
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by mogami »

Hi No I think it wil be admitted they were ID's before it went gold. But the delay waiting for art was comapred to impact on game and the knowledge that there would be other feedback that was addressed so it was not allowed to be another show stopper. I even think this was posted on the forum. I don't think anyone is going to panic over what they feel they can correct or what they feel has low impact on play. Lets face it the West Coast and USA could have many towns and other features added that effect game play not a whit. The Darwin issue may or may not be important I have to check it. It never was a item before and I've long been an advocte of using Darwin (I believe in as many axis of advance against the enemy as I can support. I won't cut one to make another but if I can support two drives I'll set them up and if push comes to shove I'll back the one that is producing the most results)
I think more Japanese will capture Darwin then Allies will make offensives from there that hurt the Japanese without other drives spltting the Japanese forces. Then my concern is the connection will allow them to advance from there too far too fast. (But then again that makes them easier to kill then if they stay put in Darwin.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
akbrown
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by akbrown »

Hi,

Thanks for the comments, they are very useful.

I remember commenting on the strange nature of the Aussie WitP map months ago, and I offered to help research a better one then, but I don't remember rceeiving a reply to that request, or an explanation of why it would not be changed.

My personal concern is one of historical accuracy. I understand that there may be aspects of the game engine that require map innacuracies to be added, but the Australian innaccuracies are very large. It may be that the unintended consequences of the current map, as far as generation of ahistorical results is concerned, outweigh any intended consequences -if any - that led to the present Australian map being used.

My personal view - probably wrong - is that it was more a lack of time and resources that led to the issue not being chased up, perhaps combined with a feeling that it is not very important. Of course it IS very important to us Aussies! For me the map is so strange that it breaks the 'immersion' that I would like to feel when I play the game - the feeling that I am playing an accurate historical wargame. In most other respects (OOB, platforms etc.), from what I have seen, the attention to detail has been superb, even if the inevitable mistakes and oversights have crept in as a sheer result of the scale of the game. That attention to detail makes such a glaring error as the Aussie map harder to overlook.

I am hoping that, with assistance from those of us willing to help, that a new version of the map can be created at some point in the patch process.

Some other things:

- My Australian game map is a small scale map that I created just to show how I thought that it can be improved. I HAVE started work on a full scale map, but this is very time consuming, and I am also not very good at doing the artwork. My small scale map is made up from discreet hexes pasted together, whereas the official map contains blended and varying terrain textures - much harder to draw well, and a LOT more time consuming.

- I do not expect everything to be perfect. I am just hoping for something better.

- It is a great shame that the base land connection data is not contained in a moddable text file. If that was the case, then we could mod everything ourselves and we wouldn't have to pester Matrix.

- I have drawn the Alice Springs to Darwin connection as a road, as I believe that 'track' in the game is meant to represent a foot track, and also because the link was upgraded during the war to better handle vehicle traffic. I guess if this connection, as a road, still allowed too much supply to easily reach Darwin then it would be better to use 'track' to slow it down, but I have no way of testing that.

- I also think we need more research to look at exactly how Darwin WAS supplied during the war. I also have no reasl information on the size and potential of the other northern bases included in the game, such as Wyndham and Derby.

Regards,
Andrew Brown
jrcar
Posts: 2301
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: Seymour, Australia

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by jrcar »

Good link:

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/bfa/dusty_track.html

I have the tonnages for the rail line at home.

Cheers

Rob
AE BETA Breaker
jrcar
Posts: 2301
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: Seymour, Australia

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by jrcar »

Source "The Never-Never Line" the Story of the North Australia Railway.

Interesting bits.

in 943 30% of the supllies for Darwin came via coastal shipping.

Fuel was all bought by shipping, and taken by rail to the rail/road head inland to supply the convoy's.

8 Trains a day each way, mostly carting troops and food.

It appears that most of the rail shipping was going inland from the Port to the various bases (especially the air bases).

At the start of the war the line was handling 80 tons a day... by 1943 it was handling 500 tons a day (still not a great amount, about the equivelent of 1/2 - 1 real train, rember this line was narrow gauge).

The June 1942 road section from Alice Springs north could ship 330 tons a day using 1300 vehicles (which was more than the railway could handle).

By 1944 the railway was hauling almost 1000 tons northward and 500 tons southward (wounded, soldiers on leave, fuel for the trucks).


Cheers

Rob
AE BETA Breaker
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by Mike Scholl »

MOGAMI. I don't have any problems with the extra base sites at Guadalcanal or
Okinawa or such. And I agree some "stretching of reality" probably had to occur
at a few places on the Asian mainland to make the system work. And certain
distances will have to have some distortions given the "projection" of the map.
But many of them are in vital places unnecessarily. The distortions in distance
between NE Australia and Papua New Guinea are a case in point. Why not distort
the Australian mainland (where little action is expected except along the coasts
anyway) instead of the distance in the area around Pt Moresby where a good deal
of activity will probably occur? That is the kind of choice 2by3 made that dissap-
points me because many of the "key" areas of the map are where the major distor-
tions show up. In the South China Sea, Saigon is 100 miles too close to Singapore.
Another "key area" I wouldn't care if no-name atoll were out of place by a few
hexes, or if the southern part of Australia were stretched so that Perth was several
hexes farther from Brisbane than it should be. Those places aren't going to come
into major play in most games. If I was unemployeed (like I was a couple years
back) I'd take you up on drawing a better map. As it is, I'm working 60-72 hour
weeks, so I'll have to pass.
User avatar
Mark VII
Posts: 1848
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 6:41 am
Location: Brentwood,TN

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by Mark VII »

Including seeing the rail/supply issues straightened out, would love to see at least a dot base for Exmouth Gulf. Yes, maybe it is only a jetty, but it was turned into a major sub base. It would be up the the Allied player to put a sub tender or two there and bring a constant supply of AK's and TK's to keep those subs supplied and repaired. It is 600 miles closer than Perth to the action.
Image
User avatar
Blackhorse
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Eastern US

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by Blackhorse »

ORIGINAL: jrcar
Interesting bits.
in 943 30% of the supllies for Darwin came via coastal shipping.
Fuel was all bought by shipping, and taken by rail to the rail/road head inland to supply the convoy's.
8 Trains a day each way, mostly carting troops and food.
It appears that most of the rail shipping was going inland from the Port to the various bases (especially the air bases).
At the start of the war the line was handling 80 tons a day... by 1943 it was handling 500 tons a day (still not a great amount, about the equivelent of 1/2 - 1 real train, rember this line was narrow gauge).
The June 1942 road section from Alice Springs north could ship 330 tons a day using 1300 vehicles (which was more than the railway could handle).
By 1944 the railway was hauling almost 1000 tons northward and 500 tons southward (wounded, soldiers on leave, fuel for the trucks).

Rob,

Very nice research. And a nice logistical solution to the difficult problem of fueling 1,300 trucks -- send the fuel by sea!

I'm looking at proposing changes to the base / road / rail in Alaska and Canada which suffers from the same shortcomings as the Australia map -- too many rail lines, too easy for the allies to supply / reinforce Alaska. My efforts are limited because my CD hasn't arrived yet . . . can some kind soul post here and list the Alaska / Canada bases that are currently in the game? Thanks!
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Mark VII

Including seeing the rail/supply issues straightened out, would love to see at least a dot base for Exmouth Gulf. Yes, maybe it is only a jetty, but it was turned into a major sub base. It would be up the the Allied player to put a sub tender or two there and bring a constant supply of AK's and TK's to keep those subs supplied and repaired. It is 600 miles closer than Perth to the action.

A dot at most. It turned out to be unsuitable and was abandonned. Brutal conditions, which may further highlight the difficult conditions in the Northern Territory.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Mark VII
Posts: 1848
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 6:41 am
Location: Brentwood,TN

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by Mark VII »

A dot is all I ask for, 0/0 on the port-airbase capabilities. Historically Exmouth Gulf was a sub base for a while. Up to the Allied player to bring the needed supplies and fuel. Depenping on how the game is going, could be an important forward base for the Allies or even the Japanese. If changes are going to be made to the map, what does a dot hurt?
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

A dot at most. It turned out to be unsuitable and was abandonned. Brutal conditions, which may further highlight the difficult conditions in the Northern Territory.
Image
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by mogami »

Hi, 330 tons per day = 9900 supply per month. Now the question is was 1300 trucks the total possible? What if the Allied player sends 13,000 trucks?
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
stubby331
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by stubby331 »

What if the Allied player sends 13,000 trucks?

Wow. Thats a lot of fuel to be shipped to Darwin....
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
jrcar
Posts: 2301
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: Seymour, Australia

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Post by jrcar »

One of the problems was a lack of trucks... especially in 1942, and yes that would mean shiping more fuel to Darwin :) In 1942 only 80 tons a day was being shiped, the 350 tons was in 1943.

Until early 1943 they really struggled to maintain the buildup (about 1 Div plus the Airbases) in Darwin. Most of the population was evacuated in 1942 after the first Japanese air attacks. The Army setup large farms to grow the food needed for the troops and this appears to be working in 1943.

In 1944 a LOT of effort was expended to try and upgrade the rail/road link to Darwin to support planned offensive action into the DEI (which was later called off) BUT a lot of this was coming by sea.

In short I estimate the link to Darwin can support a Div on the defensive, plus maybe 100 or so aircraft without coastal shiping.

cheers

Rob
AE BETA Breaker
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”