CHS too much fuel and too many ports

[mogami]

Hi Japan has around 64 tankers total. The USA could have 50,000 and it would not change anything because they only move fuel to a half dozen bases and I don't think they ever ran out at any base where they had an open supply route. If the route is closed then number of tankers is not important.

To illustrate this point. Make all Allied supply originate in Manila. Grant this base immunity from capture.Give it a starting amount of 50,000,000 supply and 50,000,000 fuel. Place every Allied Ak and Tanker and AO there. Remove All supply from all other Allied bases outside the SRA. Now fight the war. Number of tankers, Number of AK amount of fuel and supply will be totally unimportant.

[Brady]

Just why I wounder is this rule (concerning Japanese use of Tnakers) for replenshiment in the game? Japanese Tankers were built acording to goverment requirements to be easly converted to use as replenshiment ships, for the Navy.

[el cid again]

Does anybody here know if the rubber plantations in the Port Moresby area were up and running during the war? This might call for a small resource marker to be put there, rather like Andrew did for Noumea.

No. They had been abandoned. There are many photographs of them. Many were battlefields. They were PRE WAR facilities and most were put back into production after the war. IF Japan wanted to, it could have put them in service if it had controlled the area. So in that sense, they exist, and could be used. But labor is the issue - where would the labor come from? Japan might have to import it if it didn't make a deal with the locals.

[el cid again]

If you're going to think of 'fuel' in terms of POL, then PH should have even more than I indicated in my correction. In WitP, each fuel supply point represents one ton of fuel. PH had 4.5 million barrels available in storage. This number is from the PH hearings (all available online), the Nimitz PacFleet papers and my own analysis of the storage units you can see in photos of PH from 1941 (just to see if that much storage space was available).

The West Coast had 45 million barrels available (this from the Petroleum Administration papers). That is why the West Coast ports of SF, LA and SD should be full at 999'999.

While these figures are probably correct (I tend to think in terms of tons - not barrols - because for one thing there are different kinds of barrols!) - you have still not come to terms with the fact much of this is NOT fuel in game terms!!! It is technically "supply." EVERY bit of it that is NOT intended for oil fuel ships is not fuel! Thus, all the heating oil, all the oil for truck or other diesel engines, all the gasoline, all the aviation spirit,
all the lubricants - and this is the big one - 100% of the crude oil is NOT fuel!! What FRACTION of these reserves ARE TO BE USED IN SHIP BOILERS? That is the question you must answer to know what appears in the game inventory. I checked for Japan - and I find their figures are very very close - within 10% - maybe within 5%. By the data standards of this project, that is very good.

[el cid again]

Just why I wounder is this rule (concerning Japanese use of Tnakers) for replenshiment in the game? Japanese Tankers were built acording to goverment requirements to be easly converted to use as replenshiment ships, for the Navy.

The Japanese merchant marine indeed was government subsidized. For that reason, it was the newest and fastest in the world. Also, ships had decks designed for landing craft, and cranes to facilitate self loading. So your thinking is not all bad. Yet Japan had problems USING these ships. Most of the time troops were put on CARGO ships - and NOT on passenger ships! Civilian cargo often had to move on passenger ships that were not being used by troops! And tankers are not replenishment ships in disguise. Real replenishment ships need refers to store food, magazines to store ammunition, and crews trained in replenishment at sea - a dangerous and somewhat demanding task. Real replenishment ships in IJN had Japanese naval crews - not merchant crews. While Japan might put a few gunners on a ship to protect it - often they just gave the guns to civilians - that is not the same thing as people who know how to do an UNREP without wreaking the tanker plus the warship. They were probably wise.

Note that IJN - and the JNSDF today - train more at night and in bad weather than ANY other nation's navy. They lose lives regularly in that process - for a tactical advantage. Japan was willing to take risks - but they did it with military sailors - not civilian merchant sailors. I approve. I am unhappy with the guys driving convoys in Iraq - virtually undefended- unarmed - and not under military discipline. It is not the way I was trained to do things.

[el cid again]

Hi Japan has around 64 tankers total. The USA could have 50,000 and it would not change anything because they only move fuel to a half dozen bases and I don't think they ever ran out at any base where they had an open supply route. If the route is closed then number of tankers is not important.

To illustrate this point. Make all Allied supply originate in Manila. Grant this base immunity from capture.Give it a starting amount of 50,000,000 supply and 50,000,000 fuel. Place every Allied Ak and Tanker and AO there. Remove All supply from all other Allied bases outside the SRA. Now fight the war. Number of tankers, Number of AK amount of fuel and supply will be totally unimportant.

In Real Life the Japanese strategic advantage is based on the "tyranny of distance" of US LOGISTIC lines of supply. It takes a LONG time to make a round trip from Panama, San Francisco or the Middile East to any point of interest. This is the real situation that a proper supply situation should create: long lines of supply with limited amounts at the operating end. And those lines are vulnerable - if Japan seeks to raid them or use submarines against them. I find it impossible to believe this does not matter - even though we don't have to cross most of the Indian Ocean.

Putting supply in the middle of the map - at Manila - matters a lot - and if it was magically protected it would guarantee Japanese defeat in a short time. And if it was NOT protected, it might allow Japan to win - by capturing it!

[el cid again]

Japan can't use Tankers in replenishment TF and they only have a limited number of AO. The point is that if they need fuel they will plan in advance and send a replenshment TF.

They do have that monster replenshment TF at start. If the Japanese player does not disband it after the PH raid he can have 1 TF containing Tankers but then a lot of lift points he will need for oil are already commited. If your the Allied player I'd ask the Japanese player not to use this TF except to refuel the CV after PH and then disband it without unloading it before it returns to Japan.

I do not follow your reasoning at all. The IJN really had replenishment ships - 10 of them - and they should be able to be together or not as desired. On the other hand, there is a big problem because ships don't need nearly enough fuel - and go farther with the too little fuel they need than they could have gone with a real fuel load! [Hiryu and Soryu could not make it back to the refueling point without 55 gallon drums of extra fuel! You would never guess this in the game.] I would never agree to break up the only replenishment TF allowed- and if I get at the code they can have as many as they can form. It makes not the slightest sense to have any such restrictions - it is not simulation whatever it is. What is wrong is the EFFICIENCY of the ships - I fed the Kiddo Butai for a month - went to San Francisco and sank all the damaged ships limping in from Pearl - and lots of others - then sailed to Japan (for more planes not fuel) - and still had 1/3 of the fuel left in the tankers. Stuff and nonsense. The op to Pearl ALONE was about the limit - no way the real tankers could support that fleet Transpacific for that long and still have lots of fuel left. But this is fixable - just use correct fuel/range data.

[el cid again]

Most so-called 'ports' in the South Pacific in 1941 were no better than beaches where ships would off load onto smaller boats. Again, check Rottman, etc. This was especially true of many of the islands.

First, you said there were way too many ports. Even if we say your statement is true (it more or less isn't) - it is FALSE to say there are too many ports. There are too many ports to represent - we don't have enough slots. Valdez is a real port - and an oil terminal. Where is it?

Second, you are thinking of lots of places where "trade" was in copra, and only a single (ex German) company had little stores (think 7-11 with primitive products). That does not deal with the US decision to push into the area and build ports and airfields. Before the war we did it with civilian contractors - and to a degree with military engineers too. Pan Am developed the first series of places - for the Clipper routes. But B-17s did NOT go that way! They went a completely different way - criss crossing the central Pacific (and the Japanese mandated islands) - using B-17 bases! These were not supported over the beach. There also was a French administration in the area - and some British Commonwealth ones - and one place with a dual administration (New Caledonia, a "condominium"). These places had real ports - for ocean ships - and sometimes also airfields. IF you draw up the total list, you will find more missing than present.

[el cid again]

Another fuel problem is the capability of offloading from tankers into ports of small size. Storage tanks were not available everywhere and certainly not easily for the quantities a tanker could provide until major construction was done, and this was not a quick process. Any port smaller than size 3, even 4, in the game should not allow fuel storage. Again see my sources, especially the US Naval Administration history, on these problems.

Actually, you are not thinking sufficiently abstractly. We cannot put in every barge and vessel - the US Army alone had more vessels than the US Navy - and more than are in the game database. Game designers use these little vessels abstractly. Thus, you want to store oil? You do it on a fuel barge, harbor lighter, or tiny coastal tanker. Just sail it (or tow it) in (some "barges" are "self powered") and you leave it there - instant oil tank. We did this for non liquid supply too - there were countless barges and supply vessels too small to contemplate managing. [There is a wonderful book on US Army Ships and Watercraft in World War II with pretty pictures of hundreds of them - but there were over ten thousand!]

Add to this you must be wrong about no fuel storage at all. How could a port NEVER be able to fuel ANY vessel? Think about it? One of the first things they do when they build a port of any size is put in fuel storage and some sort of fueling station. They cannot even operate in the area without such a thing. The more remote the place, the more this is done, and the greater the reserve (since it may be many months or even years between getting a fuel ship to stop). The inherant storage may be small, but it is NEVER zero.

[Pascal_slith]

el cid again,

frankly, if you would just read the sources I cite before responding, my statements would be substantiated and yours would be of dubious value for Dec. 7, 1941.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Hi Japan has around 64 tankers total. The USA could have 50,000 and it would not change anything because they only move fuel to a half dozen bases and I don't think they ever ran out at any base where they had an open supply route. If the route is closed then number of tankers is not important.

To illustrate this point. Make all Allied supply originate in Manila. Grant this base immunity from capture.Give it a starting amount of 50,000,000 supply and 50,000,000 fuel. Place every Allied Ak and Tanker and AO there. Remove All supply from all other Allied bases outside the SRA. Now fight the war. Number of tankers, Number of AK amount of fuel and supply will be totally unimportant.

In Real Life the Japanese strategic advantage is based on the "tyranny of distance" of US LOGISTIC lines of supply. It takes a LONG time to make a round trip from Panama, San Francisco or the Middile East to any point of interest. This is the real situation that a proper supply situation should create: long lines of supply with limited amounts at the operating end. And those lines are vulnerable - if Japan seeks to raid them or use submarines against them. I find it impossible to believe this does not matter - even though we don't have to cross most of the Indian Ocean.

Putting supply in the middle of the map - at Manila - matters a lot - and if it was magically protected it would guarantee Japanese defeat in a short time. And if it was NOT protected, it might allow Japan to win - by capturing it!

Mogami is making the same point that you are: the supply that counts is the supply where you need it when you need it.

[el cid again]

frankly, if you would just read the sources I cite before responding, my statements would be substantiated and yours would be of dubious value for Dec. 7, 1941.

And, equally frankly, if you won't come to terms with WITP definitions,
you cannot make a germane comment in the first place.

The oil stored at Pearl Harbor and on the US West Coast is not all "fuel" in WITP terms. Some is oil. Some is fuel. Some is supply. And it isn't easy to know exactly how much of each either - sometimes the same substance can be used in ships engines, railroad trains, trucks, or home furnaces or factory boilers - or even a few airplanes (thinking in terms of diesel fuel - which can be used in all these). How do you know BEFORE it is used what it is for? I have answers - but not perfect ones.

[Pascal_slith]

OK, el cid again.

From how I see the WitP engine work, fuel is only used by ships. Supply points are used by everything else. Therefore, fuel does seem to only represent ship fuel. If you look at the first pages of Goralski's "Oil & War", the weight values for each type of fuel is in a table.

The 4.5 million barrels of fuel oil at PH represent the 600 thousand-some odd tons that I indicate should be available at start there. This was ship fuel oil. As I said, this is substantiated by the testimonies in the PH hearings papers.

Even with your definition, this would mean that standard numbers in WitP are too low.

As to bases, the US Naval Administration histories go through the actual contracts, their values, when and how many people were sent to fulfill those contracts, and in almost all the cases what the state of of construction was on Dec. 7th. Also, when construction was ready for operations.

Sorry, but I have a very academic approach to evidence. Perhaps we are saying the same thing to some extent. However, I recommend citing sources when making any assertions.

[el cid again]

The 4.5 million barrels of fuel oil at PH represent the 600 thousand-some odd tons that I indicate should be available at start there. This was ship fuel oil. As I said, this is substantiated by the testimonies in the PH hearings papers.

Really? I have studied this - mainly re Japan - but also re ops on Hawaii - in some detail. I find listings quite a bit more complex than you are citing. They cite things like "crude oil, fuel oil, diesel oil, gasoline, aviation spirit, lubricants" etc. These things are NOT all ship fuel. And even just one category of these things does not tell us how it MUST be used. If I need for a factory boiler, a power plant boiler, or a home furnace, I can use the very same material as a ship boiler burns. [In fact, sometimes ships can burn even crude oil directly - which is why Japan based major ships at Balikpapan]. Just knowing you have so much of this kind of material does not tell us that Joe Smith, USMC needs XYZ tons of it to power his convoy (or whatever) three months from now. IF we want to feed him, we must call those tons supply points. IF we want to feed a ship, we must call those tons fuel. And IF we want to send it to a refinery to turn into aviation spirit, we must call it oil. Since you cannot know what future requirements of players will be, you cannot know how to classify the material at the start of the game. You must guess. Until you understand the nature of the guess, you have zero chance of guessing even close.

YOU are guessing "all the fuel will be used in ships." This is not going to be true even one game in a hundred. And it matters: putting too much ship fuel at Hawaii means you have to ship less there. It also means, if captured, you gave too much to Japan. SOME of those tons need to be supply points, for example. We are doing this for Japan - and it is hard to know what the ratio should be? There we also have crude oil - and probably it should be classified as oil in game turns - but some of it COULD be used as fuel. Do we deny that to players? These are the awkward questions you must deal with if you mod the game. Oversimplifing because you don't understand game definitions only means you won't get a good result. IF you understand the definitions and make reasonable estimates in terms of them, at least there is a chance you will be close.

[el cid again]

Sorry, but I have a very academic approach to evidence. Perhaps we are saying the same thing to some extent. However, I recommend citing sources when making any assertions.

You should meet Joe Wilkerson.

Sorry - but I am deep into major modding work. I will participate in lay discussion. Documentation to scholarly standards takes a very long time - I am exhaustive about it and no one does it more thoroughly than I do. But I don't feel any need to do that for informal discussion. I have a clue what is going on here. Listen or not - your choice.

You are indeed correct that stocks are not correct. However, you are not using a complex enough model to get the correct data. UNTIL you have found sources that tell you more than total storage capacity you won't have even the basic data you need to have. HOW MUCH is crude oil? HOW MUCH is number 2 fuel oil? HOW MUCH is aviation spirit? HOW MUCH is gasoline of the ordinary sort. HOW MUCH is other stuff. You need more than that: you ALSO need to know what proportion of the fuel oil is used by ships, how much by everything else, in a typical month (or whatever period)? You need to decide if the crude oil is only sent to refineries - or has other applications [at least in Japan and one the West Coast it has other applications - and you need to investigate to be sure on Hawaii]. The amount of oil that will go to refineries is classified as oil. The amount that will go to ships is classified as fuel. The amount for EVERY OTHER application is classified as supplies - and it is significant.
Then there is this added complexity: what is ship fuel? News flash: not all ships burn oil fuel! How do you treat coal fired ships? CHS has an answer to this question - but what is YOUR answer to this question? What about gasoline powered vessels? The game DOES have coal fired ships AND gasoline powered PT boats and other craft - but it does NOT let them eat supply points - they eat FUEL points. How do you deal with that? This is not simply a matter of "there are 4.5 million tons of fuel at point H" or whatever. That is my point.

[Pascal_slith]

again, I've cited PRIMARY SOURCES that indicated 4.5million barrels of ship fuel. This is very tiresome. You do not read through posts before you post yourself. You are just making assertions. My friendly advice to you would be if you want to purport yourself as an authority on anything, cite your checkable sources. If you can't, don't make assertions.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sorry, but I have a very academic approach to evidence. Perhaps we are saying the same thing to some extent. However, I recommend citing sources when making any assertions.

You should meet Joe Wilkerson.

Sorry - but I am deep into major modding work. I will participate in lay discussion. Documentation to scholarly standards takes a very long time - I am exhaustive about it and no one does it more thoroughly than I do. But I don't feel any need to do that for informal discussion. I have a clue what is going on here. Listen or not - your choice.

You are indeed correct that stocks are not correct. However, you are not using a complex enough model to get the correct data. UNTIL you have found sources that tell you more than total storage capacity you won't have even the basic data you need to have. HOW MUCH is crude oil? HOW MUCH is number 2 fuel oil? HOW MUCH is aviation spirit? HOW MUCH is gasoline of the ordinary sort. HOW MUCH is other stuff. You need more than that: you ALSO need to know what proportion of the fuel oil is used by ships, how much by everything else, in a typical month (or whatever period)? You need to decide if the crude oil is only sent to refineries - or has other applications [at least in Japan and one the West Coast it has other applications - and you need to investigate to be sure on Hawaii]. The amount of oil that will go to refineries is classified as oil. The amount that will go to ships is classified as fuel. The amount for EVERY OTHER application is classified as supplies - and it is significant.
Then there is this added complexity: what is ship fuel? News flash: not all ships burn oil fuel! How do you treat coal fired ships? CHS has an answer to this question - but what is YOUR answer to this question? What about gasoline powered vessels? The game DOES have coal fired ships AND gasoline powered PT boats and other craft - but it does NOT let them eat supply points - they eat FUEL points. How do you deal with that? This is not simply a matter of "there are 4.5 million tons of fuel at point H" or whatever. That is my point.

First, most players of the game probably do not want to know, or care about, such detail. This is not to say the above is not important, but at some point it need to be reduced to a data set that can be understood by most players. We must remember that this is a game primarily based on conflict and not logistics. Although I see both points and i feel that both are talking past one another. Indeed there was some 4.5M barrels of fuel for the primary use of the major fleet units. There was also av gas, diesel, and the like, as well as an entire civilian economy that needs modeling. The tanker Neosho was a sitting time bomb filled with av gas, but tis kind of detail is not represented in the current game.

Yes the logistics are horrible in this game and could have been better thought out. Yes it is important to take all the above into consideration when one wants to design a realistic logistics system. But at what level does the average player feel comfortable with as far as a complex logistics model? This is the question that must be answered first before any model can be theorized. For is this not what the game is all about.. playablility by the largest possible subset of the computer gaming population?

For me I would love to have industry, resources, and logistics modelled at the macro level. I want to be able to control production in all aspects. It is possible with the processing power of the average desktop to acheive this if someone would write the code. Too bad Matrix missed the boat on this aspect.....

[Pascal_slith]

Understand your playability issue, AlaskanWarrior.

My suggestions have mainly been for those who want to simulate the war in the Pacific at the expense of playability, and I believe there are quite a few of those here. The 'simulation' type game is really only possible in human vs. human. The point of the CHS mod was to create a better simulation, from my understanding, at the expense of playability, within the limits of the WitP coding as it stands.

In terms of a good simulation, then, I underline again the fact that the detailed sources I've studied and mentioned earlier indicate that there is too much fuel (and supplies) available all over the place on Dec. 7th, 1941, and that there are too many bases, along with a few that are overdeveloped in the standard game and CHS compared to their real state on Dec. 7th, 1941.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Understand your playability issue, AlaskanWarrior.

My suggestions have mainly been for those who want to simulate the war in the Pacific at the expense of playability, and I believe there are quite a few of those here. The 'simulation' type game is really only possible in human vs. human. The point of the CHS mod was to create a better simulation, from my understanding, at the expense of playability, within the limits of the WitP coding as it stands.

In terms of a good simulation, then, I underline again the fact that the detailed sources I've studied and mentioned earlier indicate that there is too much fuel (and supplies) available all over the place on Dec. 7th, 1941, and that there are too many bases, along with a few that are overdeveloped in the standard game and CHS compared to their real state on Dec. 7th, 1941.

Having read Rottmans book on the Islands of the Pacific I would have a tendency to agree with you. In reading the The barrier and the javelin : Japanese and Allied Pacific strategies, February to June 1942 by Willmott one can get the feel for the actual lack of logistical support anywhere outside the Hawaiian Islands for the US Navy during this time period. Indeed the Lexington and Yorktown TFs were constrained by the amount of fuel available in the two AO's and if both oilers that supported the task forces had been put out of action the US would have been forced to abandon the Coral Sea since there was simply no fuel source available at the time outside Pearl Harbor. This is not even modeled in the game.

Another aspect that needs to be dealt with is the low fuel consumption of all vessels modelled in the game, thus the need for even higher levels of fuel than currently necessary in the game, as well as way too many tankers early on. On the flip side once the US got its act together most of this concern goes away by early 1943. However, for the Japanese they were constantly wary of fuel consumption, but this is not modelled in the game either. The task force that struck Pearl Harbor would not have been able, logistically, to stay in the vicinity of Hawaii for any significant period of time. In the game the high endurance and full fuel tanks at the beginning enable the carriers to be more agressive than historically possible. The refuelling task force should not have anywhere near full loads. Indeed, extra ship fuel was loaded about the various ships in 55gal barrels.

So this begs a question: Can one modify fuel capacity at start to simulate the fact that ships at sea do not have full fuel tanks? If so then why is it not done?

[el cid again]

I've cited PRIMARY SOURCES that indicated 4.5million barrels of ship fuel. This is very tiresome.

Yep. Concur in detail. Since you won't come to terms with the software, there is no point trying to help you. Do what you like. "Ship fuel" in game terms includes gasoline, diesel oil, fuel oil and coal. "Ship fuel" in your primary sources - well I don't know what it means. The TRUTH is that US fuel depots did not just store single grade of petroleum products. Your primary sources probably only tell you the capacity of the storage facilities - not what is in them. But if they DID tell you what is in them, that does not tell you how that fuel was to be used? I can burn ship bunker oil in a power plant, a school heating plant, my fathers home heating plant, and lots of other places. The concept that there is NO diesel in eithe place is nonsense. The concept that there is no gasoline in either place is nonsense. The concept that there is no kerocine in either place is nonsense. The concept that there is no aviation spirit in either place is nonsense. The concept that there is no crude oil in either place is nonsense. The concept that there is no lubricant storage in either place is nonsense. There is a pattern here: you are not stating enough data to create a simulation from. Either you have storage capacity or you have the amount of some specific grade of petroleum. You also are not even admitting there are other kinds of storage - so you are going to short change the Americans by 100% of their fuel barges and harbor tankers, rail cars and portable storage tanks. Go ahead - I tried to tell you - reading primary sources without analysis won't give you the truth. It is even possible they are wrong! IF they say there is only one grade of petroleum in either place, they ARE wrong - I will stipulate up front. More likely you are not reading with precision - as I said up front. But even if there were - say - only number 2 diesel oil in all the US West Coast - that doesn't say it would all be used on ships - and it would not be. Until you come to terms with a reasonable way to know the fraction that would be, you have not come up with a number of use to a mod.