Matrix Games Forums

It's beyond me what all the complaining is about. I think it's terrific that there is now a way to send supplies or replacements "around the world the other way" from the US to the CBI. I thought the old system, where I would route things way south of Australia then up the map edge to India was silly. If the Allied Player wants to send a lot of DEs or LBA to the Far East via the south Atlantic and the Cape that's what they could have done in Real Life. it will cost them shippping and time (I gather shipping will be more limited in AE so this will be costly) and that's a trade off the Allies can weigh.
 
 

Historically by what route did 4 engine bombers, particularly B29s, get to China?

Most bombers going to CBI travelled from the US to Africa to the Middle East to India.

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup until the Med opens supplies arriving in Capetown are vital

So wait up a second, I'm curious.

Where do the British troops get their supplies from? Abadan? Or is Abadan only a source of unlimited fuel?

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yup until the Med opens supplies arriving in Capetown are vital

So wait up a second, I'm curious.

Where do the British troops get their supplies from? Abadan? Or is Abadan only a source of unlimited fuel?

Most supplies for the British (until 1943) arrive at Cape Town but Abadan gets a limited amount of daily supply as well (representing supplies generated in Iran/Iraq or send overland from Egypt).

In the AE we have an abstract Allied convoy system. The 'convoys' represented by this system drop supplies at certain off-map locations from time to time. The player only has to ship the stuff from places like Cape Town to on-map locations. I think most AE testers do this with auto convoys. Easy to do and you only need to bother with it when you perceive a threat to your shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean.

Abadan and Aden generate some local supplies pre 43 (Abadan more than Aden) but not masses of supply
 
Capetown and Mombasa also generate some organic supply.
 
India itself has a small surplus  if you are not conducting massive combat ops or building a lot of infrastructure or retraining an army all of which you need to do so India will not starve but without injections of supply will not be able to conduct more than say 1 Corps worth of offensive actions.
 
In additon to the above Capetown recieves ad hoc supply convoys with varying degrees of combat supplies and fuel - in 42 these are relatively low and need to be shipped to India and there are long gaps e.g. pre el Alamein/Torch where allied shipping is busy
 
They ramp up in 43 with more frequent convoys again with less visible declines around Husky/Italy.
 
In 43 the Med opens and Aden also starts to recieve convoys there is a one off injection of supplies to represent the one off shortening of the supply routes and freeing up of c 1m tonnes of allied shipping after the med opens and after that Aden rather than Capetown is the more important supply hub for the alllies in the west.
 
At this point defacto Capetown convoys can exclusivelly support Australia and Aden can manage the build up and re training of the Indian Army
 
Supply remains tight but the shortened Ocean transit from Aden frees up allied shipping capacity and ramps up available supply on the subcontinent.
 
It reduces a good bit in June 44 as Overlord/Anvil kick off but then picks up again to the back end of 44/45/46
 
Now importantly you can transfer US forces to India if you want but unless you also transfer loaded TF's of Ak's with supply on a regular basis they wont do you much good
 
The law of diminishing returns kicks in more mouths to feed more airgroups to maintain = less supply for building/retraining exisiting forces/upgrading Divisisions
 
Supply has a lot of meaning for the allies in the West now.
 
Andy
 

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?

Well, Capetown is a long way from India, so I don't think the Japanese players have too much to complain about here, then... Sounds like there will be logistical challenges aplenty in the west as well as the east. I wonder if this will curtail ahistorical Commonwealth strength in 1943 to an extent? In the games I've seen it seems pretty normal for the British/Commonwealth forces to be leaning very hard on Japan in Burma in 1943 if not outright reconquering it.

Not that I'm complaining, sounds excellent. In CHS I remember sending half the British merchant fleet from Karachi to Australia, not like they needed it after all...

Pad I don't think anything I can say will convince you I guess you will need to wait and see what others report on the game before making your decision.
 
I honestly do not believe its the issue you think it is but I suspect nothing I say will convince you of that (nor should it you think its an issue you are entitled to that view) wait for the game form your own view from everyone else's experience and in 6 months after due reflection of the AAR's and feedback you can make your call to buy or not to buy.
 
Can't say fairer than that.
 
Andy

ORIGINAL: pad152
1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).

There is unlimited fuel at the map edges anyway and always has been. How is this different from status quo? The Allies have never had to worry about fuel at map edges.

2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).

Changing ground units to SEAC command make them magically teleport to Karachi in a completely uninterceptable way with a 60 day delay and no transportation requirements. How is this different from status quo? With limited commands I assume the PP cost will remain in AE, I also suspect it'll take longer than 60 days, so this is actually a huge
penalty, not a huge bonus.

As I understand it they require ships to transport them from Capetown or Mombasa or wherever to India where the action is, so in actual fact, this system is harsher on the Allies in every single respect than WITP was? In vanilla WITP your transported units appear in India, whereas now you have to ship them from Mombasa or Capetown?

...how is this to the betterment of the Allies?

3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.

Same applies as for land forces, no?




Besides. Is the earth round or not? [&:]

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?

These are all done by ships that did not see action in the Pacific theatre - they were just used to get the stuff to the Middle East or South Africa. Now if you want to track all that stuff, then you need to give the allies ALL the shipping that was used in the Atlantic as well. Is this what you want?

Isn't it time for someone to ask for a "Bomb Alley" module so we can run the entire Med theatre just to see if we can open the supllies through the Med 2 months earlier than the nominal date? <G>
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[/quote]



1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?




[/quote]

Every argument you've made has been refuted. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Amazing how we go round and round in circles with these same arguments!!

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Pad I don't think anything I can say will convince you I guess you will need to wait and see what others report on the game before making your decision.

I honestly do not believe its the issue you think it is but I suspect nothing I say will convince you of that (nor should it you think its an issue you are entitled to that view) wait for the game form your own view from everyone else's experience and in 6 months after due reflection of the AAR's and feedback you can make your call to buy or not to buy.

Can't say fairer than that.

Andy

Andy it's not about buying the game or not, it's about the Allied and Japanese player both playing on the same map! It's seems the off map movement gives the allied player movement of forces by passing Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!

Can you tell me this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player?

Can you name one USN operation in WWII attacking(invading) the Japanese from the Atlantic?

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

Since the question is still relevant to me, is it possible to run out of fuel during an off map transit or off map point to point... --> (yes/no) <--- ?

This is answered on page 1 of this very same thread, post #24.

Thanks![:)]

Japan is in the Pacific. UK is in the Atlantic. US straddles the two. Thus, in real life, and now in the game too, Allies have option to engage in "movement of forces by passing Japanese bases, free of enemy attack."
&nbsp;
In contrast, because the actual fighting was done in the Japanease part of the world, i.e., the Pacific, "Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides)," well, depending of course on local power. Obviously in the first few months of the war, Japanese shipping enjoyed substantial safety, though it is true, even at its safest, Japanese shipping was never as safe from allied interdiction as allied shipping was moving through Atlantic, Panama into Pacific, and/or Cape/Med to Indian Ocean.
&nbsp;
Now I will grant you, the presence of Axis subs in the north Atlantic may be an appropriate thing to model in, but this wouldn't constitute an invalidation of the off-map system as you suggest, so much as a tweaking of it.
&nbsp;
I'm curious to hear the Devs/Testers address that point? Is risk of Axis interdicion in the Atlantic portion of the off-map routes modeled in anyway, or did you guys decide it was unnecessary based on real history? I dunno what actually happened? Did the US send stuff through the Gulf of Mex and close to Venezuela/Brazil to avoid Nazi subs? Were there ever any allied ships lost in those areas on the extreme southwest margins of Nazi sub hunting grounds?
&nbsp;
"so should 99% of everything the allied player ships(game balance)!" No, this is where you are off base. Because the US straddles Pacific and Atlantic oceans, allied player SHOULD have capacity to take a long way round and avoid Japanese interdiction, except of course at the points of entry into the Pac theatre, and possibly (depending on what the experts tell us about Gulf, Caribbean and Central/Southern Atlantic Axis sub attacks on allied convoys) some risk in Atlantic. As EUBanana keeps point out to you, the basic dynamics of this new system are actually no more beneficient to the allies and in some ways more constraining.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: wdolson




It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?

These are all done by ships that did not see action in the Pacific theatre - they were just used to get the stuff to the Middle East or South Africa. Now if you want to track all that stuff, then you need to give the allies ALL the shipping that was used in the Atlantic as well. Is this what you want?

6. Allied player get free use of shipping in the Atlantic![:D]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?



Every argument you've made has been refuted. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

You may want to reread the thread, all of the items stated are facts!

I’m going to jump in, very briefly, because it’s unfair for Andy to try and justify work that others did.

This business of the Allies and Japanese not playing on the same map is nothing but a shibboleth. The Allies and Japanese did indeed play on separate maps.

Off map movement is nothing more than a reasonable method of moving/introducing units and ships into the game from various global starting points; none of which were available for Japanese interdiction. They are there to slow the pace. They are there to avoid the “magic teleportation” artifices that were necessarily present in WiTP.

Andrew Brown, Don Bowen and I spent quite a while examining potential gaminess aspects of this; did find a couple, but built in some nasty traps to obviate that kind of behavior. Theoretical discussions are worthless. Once the game releases and is played for a time, complaints about off-map movement will be entertained.