Resource pathways

[Shark7]

My take on it is that you should load up fuel that is already refined. But you should also be using tankers to move the excess oil that isn't being refined in the SRA back to Japan.

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

My take on it is that you should load up fuel that is already refined. But you should also be using tankers to move the excess oil that isn't being refined in the SRA back to Japan.

You also need enough fuel on the periphery of the Empire to service and support Fleet ops. Sometimes its shorter to supply other bases from the refined fuel in the SRA. And you need to protect the shipping regardless of any other concerns.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

ORIGINAL: Shark7

My take on it is that you should load up fuel that is already refined. But you should also be using tankers to move the excess oil that isn't being refined in the SRA back to Japan.

You also need enough fuel on the periphery of the Empire to service and support Fleet ops. Sometimes its shorter to supply other bases from the refined fuel in the SRA. And you need to protect the shipping regardless of any other concerns.

Don't forget too the one advantage of FUEL is that, in a pinch, we can use xAKs to haul it, not just TKs. That may become necessary if tanker losses get severe. With the new sub lethality, it looks like the Allies will be able to more closely match historical sub results, which is good for playing the game, not so good if you're trying to run an economy....

Losing one of those Tonan Whaler TKs is going to hurt each time....maybe worse than losing a DD.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

ORIGINAL: Shark7

My take on it is that you should load up fuel that is already refined. But you should also be using tankers to move the excess oil that isn't being refined in the SRA back to Japan.

You also need enough fuel on the periphery of the Empire to service and support Fleet ops. Sometimes its shorter to supply other bases from the refined fuel in the SRA. And you need to protect the shipping regardless of any other concerns.

Don't forget too the one advantage of FUEL is that, in a pinch, we can use xAKs to haul it, not just TKs. That may become necessary if tanker losses get severe. With the new sub lethality, it looks like the Allies will be able to more closely match historical sub results, which is good for playing the game, not so good if you're trying to run an economy....

That is why I like the idea of using the tankers to transport oil since I can utilize some AK capacity for the fuel. I do keep the periphery fueled, no problem there. However, anything not needed in the outer rim of the empire needs to head back to the HI's where it is both usefull to heavy industry and out of range of 4Es as long as possible.

The SRA is vulnerable and too large to properly defend. You have to pick you defensive points carefully. Follow Sun Tzu's rules of war and remember that "he who defends everything defends nothing."

[Q-Ball]

Not to overcomplicate fuel consumption and moving materials around, one way to improve fuel shipments is using the new REFUEL features; i.e., ONLY refuel ships in the SRA when making the trip, and the net effect will be additional shipments to the Home Islands. You can manage it so the drain from Home Islands in fuel is very minimal, if you draw from SRA you eliminate the need to move that amount; you carry it in the ship's bunkers.

Not sure how to account for all of that, but it makes a difference.

[Woos]

We can then relate these to the vessels' loading capacity and come up with 'ton-mile' figures that will indicate which are the most fuel-efficient load shifters.

Yokel,
have a look at WitpStaff's Ship Classes Tab which shows those efficiency figures for all the transport classes (AKs, APs and TKs). See also post 45 in the Japanese Merchant Marine thread. I never tested them though, just using data from the manual and whatever crumb I got from the developer's table

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Woos

We can then relate these to the vessels' loading capacity and come up with 'ton-mile' figures that will indicate which are the most fuel-efficient load shifters.

Yokel,
have a look at WitpStaff's Ship Classes Tab which shows those efficiency figures for all the transport classes (AKs, APs and TKs). See also post 45 in the Japanese Merchant Marine thread. I never tested them though, just using data from the manual and whatever crumb I got from the developer's table

<slaps forehead in exasperation at own stupidity> Whoa, I'd already seen that post, and its significance hadn't sunk in. Beat me over the head long enough and eventually something percolates in... Thanks, Woos, that fuel efficiency data in Staff will save me a lot of time, and makes interesting reading in its own right.

The figures seem to bear out what one would expect: the relatively modern designs dating from the 'thirties generally offer significantly better fuel efficiency as well as better speed; at first sight these seem to be the obvious candidates for long haul work from the SRA. The whale factory ships offer fuel efficiency on a par with the US T2's, whilst on the cargo front the Standard A's lag a bit behind the efficiency of the Liberties, but are respectable (and faster).

The class data shown in Staff also brings home the point that at the war's start the Japanese enjoy the services of just 65 tankers, of which 31 are small vessels best suited to short haul work. In the first year of the war Japan adds just 7 additional tankships to the inventory, absent accelerations/conversions. How hard it's going to be to shift liquid cargo in the quantity required!

Going back to Zebedee's post #100, it had occurred to me that a capable convoy commodore (TF leader) might have an impact, as I believe I have detected them imparting extra distance travelled per turn. I use relatatively low aggression flag officers extensively as transport TF commanders for this reason. Another factor affecting TF performance is damage routinely sustained by its members: degradation in the performance of a single ship leading to loss of speed affects all ships in the TF unless the laggard is detached and allowed to proceed as a straggler. Add in any evasive routing around detected enemy submarines and Zebedee is quite correct to say that the best one can hope for is a ballpark figure for convoy performance. This means that a margin for delay must be built into planning of cycle times between two ports.

However, I suspect that the real bottleneck may prove to be berth availability in Home Islands ports. For example, you have a 20-ship convoy en route Hiroshima from the SRA, and a 10-ship inbound resources convoy from Dalian. Their aggregate tonnage is going to exceed Hiroshima's docking capacity, so something is going to have to give. I think this will be a conflict that rears its head quite frequently. Enjoy!

[seydlitz_slith]

The best way to work around the port limits is to still use large convoys to transit, but break the convoy into multiple task forces on arrival with each task force capable of docking. Then, you dock the smaller task forces in rotation to maximise unloading. All the while, the undocked TFs keep unloading via lighter. That way it maximises your port facilities and is probably how it was done in real lift.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
However, I suspect that the real bottleneck may prove to be berth availability in Home Islands ports. For example, you have a 20-ship convoy en route Hiroshima from the SRA, and a 10-ship inbound resources convoy from Dalian. Their aggregate tonnage is going to exceed Hiroshima's docking capacity, so something is going to have to give. I think this will be a conflict that rears its head quite frequently. Enjoy!

There are several very large ports in Japan. Not just Hiroshima.

There is a good reason that, in Real Life (as well as in AE), Japan had (and still has) several of the world's largest and busiest ports.

Andrew

[Local Yokel]

An alternative that I foresee is division&nbsp;of the big convoys into smaller ones that distribute unloading across a number of ports. Then re-assemble into a big convoy of outbound empties.&nbsp; However you organise it, this will not lend itself to mechanisms such as CS TF's - e.g. you will need to divide the big convoys manually, and on arrival at destination you will want to strip out escorts to maximise berth usage (and arrange refuelling of the shorter-legged escorts).

[Zebedee]

Just on the problem of this fuel calculation thing, sandbox testing can give something like the following figures (sorry just putting in a couple from the last run through for the moment):

(taken from a Guadalcanal head-to-head scenario, mission speed set, no active bad mojo from Allies, first turn TF is set up and leaves Truk, course is a straight line SE across the map from Truk with both ships sailing it at the same time, no cargo carried)

Fujisan Maru (TK, rated at 12 knots) 4000 endurance, 280 fuel

Turn 1: 3 hexes travelled 3885 endurance 272 fuel
Turn 2: 6 hexes travelled 3657 endurance 256 fuel
Turn 3: 7 hexes travelled 3385 endurance 237 fuel
Turn 4: 7 hexes travelled 3114 endurance 218 fuel

Totals: 23 hexes travelled 886 endurance expended 72 fuel expended

Aden Maru (xAK, rated at 12 knots) 9400 endurance, 1146 fuel

Turn 1: 3 hexes travelled 9276 endurance 1131 fuel
Turn 2: 7 hexes travelled 8989 endurance 1096 fuel
Turn 3: 7 hexes travelled 8702 endurance 1061 fuel
Turn 4: 6 hexes travelled 8456 endurance 1031 fuel

Totals: 23 hexes travelled 944 endurance expended 112 fuel expended

Both ships have travelled 23 hexes, but the tanker's fuel efficiency is more like it has an endurance of 3445, the xAK's more like it has an endurance of 9659 and the endurance used by both ships is certainly very different - but not in the way I would have expected.

Note too that the xAK actually went a hex ahead of the TK during the voyage until the TK caught up in turn 4 despite both being rated for the same speed.

The xAK had a captain with a naval rating of 23, the TK one with a rating of 19 which might explain some of that. But note that the fuel expenditure seems to vary (on a bigger sample you'd see much wider variation) when linked to endurance, but holds a much closer relationship to the number of hexes travelled.

Over the weekend I think the basis of working out my calculations will be working out a fuel used per hex and then making allowances for truly awful task force commanders below 20 naval skill (if a 19 skill TF commander can increase fuel consumption for his TF by 10% - assuming it is TF commander and not ship captain! - then there may be good reason to invest PP points to get better TF commanders for regular convoys.)


Here's the rules relevant to this test:

Ships use fuel whenever they move. In War in the Pacific, Admiral’s Edition™, each ship is rated for how much fuel it can hold as well as its maximum endurance, which is the number of miles the ship can travel at cruising speed. The TF display shows the amount of endurance remaining for each ship in the TF. A ship with no endurance left will cause its TF to have a maximum movement speed of one hex per naval movement phase. Whenever a ship moves in a TF, it draws on its Endurance, which in turn subtracts from the amount of fuel carried. Fuel is expended when:

»» A ship moves the entire turn at or below its Cruising Speed (the cruise speed for the ship in hexes as specified on each Ship Information Screen); this ship will use up Endurance equal to 40 times the number of hexes moved.

»» For each hex moved over the ship’s Cruising Speed, the ship will expend an additional 240 endurance per hex. The cruising speed of the TF in hexes is figured by the Cruising Speed of the slowest ship in it. Since each ship checks the TF move against its own Cruising Speed, ships in the same TF can use up different amounts of Endurance in the same move.

edit: doh! must refresh before posting. I shall tattoo it on my hand. Apologies for making a point Local Yokel has made in the meantime far more succinctly.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

An alternative that I foresee is division of the big convoys into smaller ones that distribute unloading across a number of ports. Then re-assemble into a big convoy of outbound empties.  However you organise it, this will not lend itself to mechanisms such as CS TF's - e.g. you will need to divide the big convoys manually, and on arrival at destination you will want to strip out escorts to maximise berth usage (and arrange refuelling of the shorter-legged escorts).

CS TFs aren't going to be relevant in the economy because they don't work for resources/fuel/oil.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

CS TFs aren't going to be relevant in the economy because they don't work for resources/fuel/oil.

I set up a few between the Hokkaido, Kyushu, Korea to Honshu for resources. They seem to be working, at least when I have checked. Could I be wrong though?[&:]

It certainly will be very helpful if at least automatic resource convoys in sea of japan DID work

[Mynok]

Hmm....that's a major change from Witp that I wasn't aware of if it is true...and a very helpful change.

[Q-Ball]

I never trusted CS in WITP. Decided to give it a shot in AE. They are definitely loading and moving, I need to check to see if it's at maxmimum efficiency, but I think it works.

You are right, this would be a revelation. I still don't like CS for hauling stuff around the perimeter, but for resource hauling to Honshu, it's perfect. I can also see using it for short-range Oil hauls to Singapore from Medan, and other runs like that.

[Mynok]

And you are sure it is resources and not supply?

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


And you are sure it is resources and not supply?

Absolutely, it's ORANGE. Resources are piling up at Shimoneseki. I think it works.

[Mynok]

Cool!

[Shark7]

Now if we can just get it to haul supplies one way and resources the other we can finally maximize the efficiency.

[Mynok]

I'm wondering how useful that really is. There are plenty of resources so I don't see the need to repair damaged ones at all. I can see the usefulness of toting supplies to say Singapore and returning with resources, at least early on. That requires some pondering.