question about supply hoarding at bombay and sydney

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Any plans for a fuel draw like supply ? would be a life saver in Australia , again micro managing fuel levels using small AO's and Tk's is a pain in the butt.

FYI i tried the supply draw button and its hopeless (in china).

TTFN

The situation in OZ is WAD as far as I remember from earlier threads. Cause in reality the Aussies had to transport much stuff with coastal shipping. Which can be intercepted/sunk. Changing this would probably add too much an advantage to the Allied in this area - if everythings flows from Perth to Brisbane/Sidney etc. overland the Jap can not interdict this flow. Of course I agree it is a pain [;)]

Supply in China is kind of a miracle still, but I post most troops now outside cities if possible. Even in cities sometimes supply gets through. However all my suplly routes are now open from India to China and I also fly some more in - took back also some cities which produce supply (light industry). So situation can be improved - but if Jap is on the advance and Burma road closed than it is a nightmare there sometimes.

[Rant = on]

I want to first make sure that my post is from the eyes of a Newbie with 2 weeks of experince in the game. However, IMHO) It seems the game has a developer with an IJN agenda or a big push to make the game more even. The IJN submarine warfare has changed dramatically of what is stated about "Japanese doctrine" in the documentaiton [ I have read the old thread from 2009 of why the developer felt the option should be removed and why a new algorithum was implemented] , and the behavior I observe in the game. Now I see by this thread that fuel does not redistrubute overland and so one is forced to engage in detailed redistribution over sea lanes fraught with peril. Given the rate of real life siking of merchants and the real life response that the Aussie built infrastrcuture (http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/ ... track.html )one can only imagine if the current algorithum I am seeing really happend, and the IJN submarine force simply hung out in ports seeking to sink shipping ... I would contend that the response would have been to put even more investment into infrastructure. But .. it did not make sense given what IJN sub's did in real life. However, this is the difference between a game and a similation -- a similation would have some expected response to account for a change in strategy .. a game does not ...

"Henry, your only loading supplies in the boxcars and leaving all the tanker cars empty! Any reason for that Mate" ...."Well it does not seem very fair that the Japs sail all those subs into our ports and ... well we don't give them a target or two .."

[/rant :LOL:]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Oh i really really want the new patch for China , for the same reason as stated -cities starve while i send troops out in rotation to forage for supply , its annoying and fiddly (not to mention silly).

Any plans for a fuel draw like supply ? would be a life saver in Australia , again micro managing fuel levels using small AO's and Tk's is a pain in the butt.

FYI i tried the supply draw button and its hopeless (in china).

TTFN

Yep the ability to stockpile might have made a world of difference for me in China. You can set a city to be your replacement depot and stockpile some supply there for that purpose. Too late now......(whistfully sighing).....

[Disco Duck]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Any plans for a fuel draw like supply ? would be a life saver in Australia , again micro managing fuel levels using small AO's and Tk's is a pain in the butt.

FYI i tried the supply draw button and its hopeless (in china).

TTFN

The situation in OZ is WAD as far as I remember from earlier threads. Cause in reality the Aussies had to transport much stuff with coastal shipping. Which can be intercepted/sunk. Changing this would probably add too much an advantage to the Allied in this area - if everythings flows from Perth to Brisbane/Sidney etc. overland the Jap can not interdict this flow. Of course I agree it is a pain [;)]

Supply in China is kind of a miracle still, but I post most troops now outside cities if possible. Even in cities sometimes supply gets through. However all my suplly routes are now open from India to China and I also fly some more in - took back also some cities which produce supply (light industry). So situation can be improved - but if Jap is on the advance and Burma road closed than it is a nightmare there sometimes.

[Rant = on]

I want to first make sure that my post is from the eyes of a Newbie with 2 weeks of experince in the game. However, IMHO) It seems the game has a developer with an IJN agenda or a big push to make the game more even. The IJN submarine warfare has changed dramatically of what is stated about "Japanese doctrine" in the documentaiton [ I have read the old thread from 2009 of why the developer felt the option should be removed and why a new algorithum was implemented] , and the behavior I observe in the game. Now I see by this thread that fuel does not redistrubute overland and so one is forced to engage in detailed redistribution over sea lanes fraught with peril. Given the rate of real life siking of merchants and the real life response that the Aussie built infrastrcuture (http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/ ... track.html )one can only imagine if the current algorithum I am seeing really happend, and the IJN submarine force simply hung out in ports seeking to sink shipping ... I would contend that the response would have been to put even more investment into infrastructure. But .. it did not make sense given what IJN sub's did in real life. However, this is the difference between a game and a similation -- a similation would have some expected response to account for a change in strategy .. a game does not ...

"Henry, your only loading supplies in the boxcars and leaving all the tanker cars empty! Any reason for that Mate" ...."Well it does not seem very fair that the Japs sail all those subs into our ports and ... well we don't give them a target or two .."

[/rant :LOL:]

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/ ... track.html

Rant Back

From the link you posted "How different life would have been had the rail line that is under construction in 2002 been built sixty years before." ( Darwin)

Fuel weighs a lot. It is much denser than other supplies. This means a lot of wear and tear on the (rail)roads and has it's own set of risks in handling. In the January March 1942 time frame the United States lost 43 tankers trying to keep the New England factories running. This at a time when we had a good working rail system. Another issue is where would the tanker trucks( or rail cars) come from? They weren't needed before the war ( except for local delivery) because you could ship what you needed via tankers. Dry good trucks have the advantage of being able to load and unload and many different locations during a day and that what was a major advantage compared to ships. Another advantage of the trucks was the smaller size. Before computers and containerized freight, loading and unloading a ship with many different size cargos and many destinations was a nightmare. For these reasons there would have been plenty of dry good trucks and rail cars available.

Once you get out on the highway how many tanker trucks do you see compared to dry good trucks?

[Crackaces]

My point was that eventually infrastrcutre was built because the costs of not doing so outweighed the costs of building the infrastrcuture. My subtile sarcasim/humor that was missed in the post above is that right now in my game, the current submarine threat is greater than building DD's to do ASW and it would be cheaper to build rail to Darwin ...note my smiles in my post ...

But at a deeper level the game does not let me redistrubute fuel from say Sidney to Perth by rail .. and IMHO it is to increase the targeting of ships that aligns with software changes to make the IJN submarine attacks much more effective. My thought was that if the submaine warfare agression and effectiveness that I am seeing in at least my PBEM game [two tankers 4 DD's bam! bam!] -- the powers to be would start making infrastrcuture changes rather than risk naval resources.

As far as weight of a load is concerned .. fuel weighs ~6 pounds per gallon oil is ~8 pounds per gallon .. the logistical problem is not weight but how much volume can be moved given the weight .. if the roads support a 10 ton container plus tare weight, then you can move just about 3000 gallons 3,333 gallons to be exact] per container. for example, In the US most major roads are specified for 40 tons and thus the transportation infrastrcuture is built around that specification. [yes the interstates can ship 125,000 pounds using specially configured trucks yada yada yada]. So the question is how many platforms are availible to move how many pounds of fuel using what infrastrucure .. supplies move this way abstractly in this game, but fuel is different and I believe it is artificial ...