Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I tend to do the same as String. I want to keep the fast ships (fast = valuable) afloat as long as possible. They move between my waypoints and the cargo final destination. Also, in AE, the final destination will usually have the largest ports so I can accumulate stuff at the waypoints and use larger convoys to get the stuff to those destinations.

Makes sense now that you put it that way; that is thinking of it like a "Hub and Spoke" model, which is probably now the way to go---i.e. major tranport to HUBS like Truk, Saigon, Singapore, etc, and unload-reload to "Spokes", anything with a small port.

This could apply to tankers as well, those big monsters would take FOREVER to load at Medan.

The small TKs that used to be a pain in the butt are now becomming very useful, aren't they? [:D]

Thanks John,
I guess that solves my problem. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Remember the 120 PB's have a conversion back to AKL option

That is true. I think the To'sus are better PBs than cargos though, with a 170 ton capacity.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Does this mean that the Type-N TK will be able to be converted to Tonan Whalers? [X(]

No. Blivet. NOTHING converts to a Tonan. Just think about it for a second.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Does this mean that the Type-N TK will be able to be converted to Tonan Whalers? [X(]

No. Blivet. NOTHING converts to a Tonan. Just think about it for a second.

That makes sense. What was your comment above about then?

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Makes sense now that you put it that way; that is thinking of it like a "Hub and Spoke" model, which is probably now the way to go---i.e. major tranport to HUBS like Truk, Saigon, Singapore, etc, and unload-reload to "Spokes", anything with a small port.

That's the way I've always done it. I never tell anyone about my hub locations though. They are a jealously guarded secret. [:-] They also move around. It works very well.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Elladan
Had any of you thought about Type-N Tankers yet? I wonder if I should convert them to Tonan Whaler class TKs or keep them as they are? The pro for conversion is bigger cargo space (both fuel and a little bit of resource/supply), the cons are lower speed, increased tonnage and loss of potential AO conversion. How do you think?

Damn. Database error. Tonan is a Tonan, nothing converts to it. Thanks Elladan. This will be fixed in the patch.

In this post John was mentioning that the Type-N should NOT be able to convert to the Tonan. The fact that it currently is able is a DB error that will be fixed in the first patch.

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Elladan
Had any of you thought about Type-N Tankers yet? I wonder if I should convert them to Tonan Whaler class TKs or keep them as they are? The pro for conversion is bigger cargo space (both fuel and a little bit of resource/supply), the cons are lower speed, increased tonnage and loss of potential AO conversion. How do you think?

Damn. Database error. Tonan is a Tonan, nothing converts to it. Thanks Elladan. This will be fixed in the patch.

In this post John was mentioning that the Type-N should NOT be able to convert to the Tonan. The fact that it currently is able is a DB error that will be fixed in the first patch.

Duh. Thanks Mike.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Remember the 120 PB's have a conversion back to AKL option

That is true. I think the To'sus are better PBs than cargos though, with a 170 ton capacity.

Quite fine for a computer controlled autoroute to a backyard base that need a little supplies from time to time. I always loved the small 300 and 400 ton ships in CHS, they were perfect for this use.
Just send them to a small base and hit the "Player Controlled" to make them CS. If they really get sunk, doesn't matter that much. If the opponent begins to sink them regulary, you mal still turn to manual controlled...
That saves a lot of time.

That's a good point, Historiker.  As I said earlier, I'm planning on tayloring cargo TFs to their destination to minimize wastage and delay.  It'll take some time, but once set up, it shouldn't be too hard to maintain.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Remember the 120 PB's have a conversion back to AKL option

That is true. I think the To'sus are better PBs than cargos though, with a 170 ton capacity.

Holy xAKLs Batman ! You get the prize Mike. We purposely did the To'su and Kiso-E and Std-E and the rest of the dinkys to mirror as closely as possible the actual Japanese usage. We made then 2-way convertable, because shoot happens as the war goes on, and they will eventually become very valuable as coastal creepers.

It's people like you that make me and Don Bowen sit back with a sense of mission accomplished. Well done, pal. Welcome to the wonderful world of "Dons Babies". If you are a logistics puke, we got some really sweet stuff in store for you (but you have to play human to get it, AI isn't good enuf to do that kind of capture).

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

That's a good point, Historiker.  As I said earlier, I'm planning on tayloring cargo TFs to their destination to minimize wastage and delay.  It'll take some time, but once set up, it shouldn't be too hard to maintain.

There should be plenty of bases with just so few ressources that any bigger ship will be wasted capacity. They can either unload their small cargo at the hub or join the big convois, there.

I am salivating as I read this thread...the depth put into logistics and shipping is a "most-wanted" feature for me in any strategic/operational level game. I don't think I've ever seen another game that comes close to simulation this underappreciated aspect.

I'm starting a game just to run through this and see where I have problems. Right off the bat, I am converting about 30 Aden-class or so to AK-t, maybe more. Chose that class because they have a good amount of troops space, yet are fairly plentiful and a class we can lose some of. In a good port they convert in 4-5 days.

That's the way I've always done it. I never tell anyone about my hub locations though. They are a jealously guarded secret. They also move around. It works very well.

Um....they aren't going to be much of a secret anymore. The hubs are going to require major port facilities and there just aren't that many of those around.

ORIGINAL: JWE

<snip>
We put as much thought into this as we did for production. And it’s just as flexible; or not, as you please. My hope is that hull protection and allocation becomes as important as a/c engine production.

Hope we haven’t been too Evil.

You have made it to be, definitely... major food for thought in what you have done with the Japanese side of the logistics nightmare... but oh so much more fun!

I think it's all great.

I have been staring at my Dec 8 screen for days now studying nothing but this Jap merchant fleet issue. I agree that so far it seems that tailoring TF based upon port size/ship size and escort size is of paramount importance. Using 2 escorts for some of the more important ships may be necessary. Using even the smaller ships from the get go is important I think. Using a naming covention like Mike suggested will help a lot to keep the various TFs straight.

A hub and spoke supply model is needed imo to at least some extent, but I also agree that the allies will know that so I plan to have both " A " size hubs, as well as some " B " s . And in order to keep the Allies from camping certain routes, it is going to be important to both use the waypoint system and to also to remeber to randomly change some shipping patterns.

I have no ideas yet as to switching out merchant/naval yards. I am going to leave them alone for now.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I tend to do the same as String. I want to keep the fast ships (fast = valuable) afloat as long as possible. They move between my waypoints and the cargo final destination. Also, in AE, the final destination will usually have the largest ports so I can accumulate stuff at the waypoints and use larger convoys to get the stuff to those destinations.

Makes sense now that you put it that way; that is thinking of it like a "Hub and Spoke" model, which is probably now the way to go---i.e. major tranport to HUBS like Truk, Saigon, Singapore, etc, and unload-reload to "Spokes", anything with a small port.

This could apply to tankers as well, those big monsters would take FOREVER to load at Medan.

The small TKs that used to be a pain in the butt are now becomming very useful, aren't they? [:D]

They can probably be used for short hauls of fuel to HI bases. One thing is becoming very, very clear to me. Having a well thought out convoy system, utilizing large bases as depots and then sending out with smaller task forces from there is a must. And not just for Japan.

ORIGINAL: Mynok

That's the way I've always done it. I never tell anyone about my hub locations though. They are a jealously guarded secret. They also move around. It works very well.

Um....they aren't going to be much of a secret anymore. The hubs are going to require major port facilities and there just aren't that many of those around.

The hubs are usually pretty easy to find. Just look for a base with Zero's as thick as a swarm of flies near a cow pie...there is your supply hub. [:D]