Fuel Supply allies

[Stvitus2002]

Why would you use Seattle for supply but not fuel?

In the old WITP, Frisco/LA always seemed to get more fuel than Seattle.

North Pac doesn't need much of either unless you're mounting a huge effort through the Aleutians.

Mostly as a sub base to harass northern Japan/Kuriles with short range S-boats.

Sounds like i'll have to supply Karachi & Columbo from Capetown until Aden
Kicks in.


WO 0/0

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Warrant officer 0/0

Why would you use Seattle for supply but not fuel?

In the old WITP, Frisco/LA always seemed to get more fuel than Seattle.

Use the clicker to max out the pull into Seattle and it'll be enough.

Sounds like i'll have to supply Karachi & Columbo from Capetown until Aden
Kicks in.

That works fine. Just use the threat route buttons to make them "Safer" and you'll get straight shots into Colombo from due west. Karachi seems to do OK for me on supplies if you just get it fuel. I use Abadan CT convoys. I think two 2-TK convoys has been enough for the past two years. When I needed supply piles to move hard into Burma, I used Madras, and then shuttled under LRCAP over to Cox's Bazar and points south from there. Karachi has really been nerfed from its importance in WITP. It's a backwater now.

WO 0/0

[Cad908]

Fuel Migration: I think I am getting a better handle on fuel movement within a continent, IE Australia.

Supply will pool at the largest port after bases get to 3x their supply required. For example, if I ship 100,000 supply to Perth, and Perth has 5,000 "supply required" on the base screen, only 15,000 supply will remain. The rest will migrate away from Perth filling connected bases to 3x their supply required. Any balance will flow to the largest port in the chain. In Australia this is Sydney. A player can use the toggle to increase supply required where he wants it. For example if I am using Townsville as my forward operational base, I can set the toggle to max out at 25,000 plus then 75,000 supply will want to flow to that base. This makes it very easy to manage your bases with a little adjustment. Within a continent, or any group of linked bases, you really to not have to ship supply around, just dump it in one port and adjust your base toggles as you want.

Fuel, however, seems a little different. You cannot directly set the "fuel required" at a base. Fuel required is determined by ships at anchor and the need for heavy industry at the base. According to one of the developers (BigJ62) in another post, fuel will not migrate until 3x the fuel required is at the base. In my current game, it is early and I have been shipping tons of fuel to Australia. The drop point has been Brisbane. Brisbane requires around 35,000 fuel, so each time tankers unload, when the base gets to 105,000 fuel, the rest flows out. This fuel goes to other bases to meet their fuel required and any surplus ends up in Sydney (just like supply). If I want to maintain a larger stock at one point, for example to fuel carrier and surface combat fleets, the only thing I can do is put more ships in the port. This will increase the fuel required and more will stick at that port. If I were to ship 50,000 fuel from Sydney to Townsville, and Townsville only has 5,000 required, 15,000 fuel would remain in Townsville, and the rest would flow back to Sydney. If I want to operate fleets from Townsville, as I consume fuel none will flow back unless another port has 3x its fuel required.

I believe this is WAD and it seems consistent in my game both in Australia and India. Someone mentioned above that you should not drop fuel in Australia unless you want to support heavy industry. This seems true and the player only has a slight options to control where fuel sits. You should keep that in mind as you plan your logistics.

[Bullwinkle58]

But . . .

Fuel will not migrate from Perth to Sydney. There is a trace limit as to how far away the code looks to redistribute. I don't think that limit has ever been advertized, except explicitly to say that Perth-Sydney is too far. I'd be very surprised if the trace extends from Sydney to Darwin.

As to your final statement that heavy industry should preclude sending fuel to Sydney, this seems to my way of playing, as I said in another post, as putting the cart before the horse. To PREVENT making valuable supplies with a portion, you PREVENT fuel from going where the war machine and your best theater shipyard lies unless it first re-negotiates sub-infested waters, which would not be necessry if you weren't trying to prevent valuable supply production.

To each his own I guess.

[Misconduct]

So I went and redistributed all my transports and so far I have a nice system working,
All my AKL's I am using to distribute to front line bases, I figure if I lose a few of the smaller AKL's its no big deal for the allies.
2/3 of my Tankers bring fuel from San Francisco to Pearl, 1/3 from Pearl to Suva via Palmyra island, Pago as waypoints
AK's with Short Legs Transport 2/3 my fuel to Pearl from San Francisco and 1/3 Supplies
AK's with long legs go from San Fran to Suva via Palmyra island and Pago Pago with Fuel/Ammo
AP's right now are transporting Fuel from Pearl, Palmyra island, Pago Pago to Suva
AO's are transporting fuel to Pearl from San Fran while my carriers are being laid up for 6/42 upgrade (yeah late i know)

so far I managed in 1 week to get my fuel supply back up on Suva to 100k which is nice considering fact I had only 12,000 fuel in all of Noumea area when I originally posted this. Hopefully I didn't dedicate to much to fuel and not supplies, however my supply situation seems fine considering I am not having any offense for lately.

For DEI Campaign I actually set 7 AP's to bring fuel with 4 destroyers from Capetown to Perth, along with every Tanker I have in the DEI area except 6 to from Colombo to Perth. Granted with the build up in India I have no real interest in the DEI campaign till '44 and so far I have 250k of fuel in Diamond Harbor, Calcutta respectably.

[Nomad]

Misconduct, I assume you are playing against the AI? In a PBEM game I would never have TKs that near the front line. There is no way in early 1942 I would have TKs going from PH to Palmyra to Pago Pago and to Suva. That is a good way to loose a bunch of TKs and/or AKs.

[Misconduct]

Its against the AI, but just trying to get a logistics system rolling do you suggest all tankers from San Fran to suva?

[Nomad]

To be quite honest, there is a vast difference in how I would play against the AI and a human opponent. Against a human opponent I am much more careful than when playing the AI. A human is much more likely to sail KB or a part of it to Suva, Pago Pago, Canton Island, or Palmyra and sink those ships. If I am sending TFs from the West Coast to Australia in PBEM I move them on the periphery of the map and use a replenishment TF to refuel them along the way. That is why I put ships on the Eastern USA to Cristobal run to build up supply and fuel at Cristobal and then use small AK TFs to move them to the South Pacific Islands. Plus, I mostly don't worry about fortifying or building some of those islands until I can move enough to be mostly certain to hold them.

Against the AI, to get fuel and supply to Suva I would start the TFs at PH and move them to Suva using one waypoint directly South of PH on the same hex row as Suva. Using 12000+ endurance TKs and AKs, they sould be able to get there and back without refueling and they will have enough to refuel the 4 - 6 escorts I would send. I will often send large TFs with AKs, TKs, and APs, transporting LCUs, Air Units, supply and fuel at the same time. Takes less escorts.

[witpqs]

I saw the AI sailing CVTF's north of Hawaii then down into the shipping lanes.

[Nomad]

I think the big thing is that I am not so worried about losing some shipping to the AI, it isn't all that smart and in the end it is fairly easy to beat it( but then complacency can cost you [:@].[:D])

[Cad908]

Moose,

I was not advocating any particular approach as best, but just helping to frame the choices for a fellow newbie who is/was having a problem. I think he sparked a very informative and useful discussion for all beginning players, and the breadth of options other players have detailed shows this forum at its best.

I do have a couple of issues with your reply.

First:

"Fuel will not migrate from Perth to Sydney. There is a trace limit as to how far away the code looks to redistribute. I don't think that limit has ever been advertized, except explicitly to say that Perth-Sydney is too far. I'd be very surprised if the trace extends from Sydney to Darwin."

The lack of precision from the developers can be quite irksome, and it comes up here. I had never really tested how far that fuel will move, although BigJ62 has outlined a great deal of this in other posts. I run tankers from Abadan to Karachi all the time, and the fuel flows throughout all India that is connected by rail. So, I decided to test Australia. I went to a save versus the AI I have been playing around with and it presented an easy way to test fuel Brisbane ----> Perth.

Start: Perth (16,040 fuel) (9,580 fuel requested). Brisbane (70,000 fuel) (23,000 fuel requested). My understanding, as I detailed above, is that Brisbane is at "equilibrium" and any fuel shipped to it will distribute to other linked bases as needed. Brisbane will receive a 50,000 fuel tanker in about a week. I sent some supply task forces that that were running Capetown --> Perth back to Perth and had them refuel and then disband in Perth. After five days, Perth now has (1,913 fuel) and (22,580 fuel requested). Brisbane has held steady and Sydney has been using a little fuel for heavy industry. Tanker carrying 50,000 arrives Brisbane and unloads. No other task forces have arrived or fueled in Australia. Tankers take two days to unload. Brisbane (70,000 fuel) (23,000 fuel requested) has not changed. Perth now has (22,396 fuel) and (22,580 fuel requested). Sydney has increase its fuel by about 30,000.

Conclude: Fuel moved from Brisbane to Perth in two days to fill the need and the balance went to Sydney. I assume it would also flow Perth --> Brisbane under similar conditions.

Also:

"As to your final statement that heavy industry should preclude sending fuel to Sydney, this seems to my way of playing, as I said in another post, as putting the cart before the horse. To PREVENT making valuable supplies with a portion, you PREVENT fuel from going where the war machine and your best theater shipyard lies unless it first re-negotiates sub-infested waters, which would not be necessry if you weren't trying to prevent valuable supply production.

To each his own I guess."

My point was that if a player decides to ship fuel to Australia, he will have no choice but to also support its heavy industry given how fuel flows between bases. The conclusion I draw is that if you supply Australia, bring lots more that you think you will need just for fleet operations.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Misconduct, I assume you are playing against the AI? In a PBEM game I would never have TKs that near the front line. There is no way in early 1942 I would have TKs going from PH to Palmyra to Pago Pago and to Suva. That is a good way to loose a bunch of TKs and/or AKs.

It's a good way against the AI too. Andy Mac designed in Cruiser Raiders of Death scripts. They are relentless once triggered. They may go very far south. I know they come up the middle and go as far north as Midway.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Cad908

First:

"Fuel will not migrate from Perth to Sydney. There is a trace limit as to how far away the code looks to redistribute. I don't think that limit has ever been advertized, except explicitly to say that Perth-Sydney is too far. I'd be very surprised if the trace extends from Sydney to Darwin."

The lack of precision from the developers can be quite irksome, and it comes up here. I had never really tested how far that fuel will move, although BigJ62 has outlined a great deal of this in other posts. I run tankers from Abadan to Karachi all the time, and the fuel flows throughout all India that is connected by rail. So, I decided to test Australia. I went to a save versus the AI I have been playing around with and it presented an easy way to test fuel Brisbane ----> Perth.

Start: Perth (16,040 fuel) (9,580 fuel requested). Brisbane (70,000 fuel) (23,000 fuel requested). My understanding, as I detailed above, is that Brisbane is at "equilibrium" and any fuel shipped to it will distribute to other linked bases as needed. Brisbane will receive a 50,000 fuel tanker in about a week. I sent some supply task forces that that were running Capetown --> Perth back to Perth and had them refuel and then disband in Perth. After five days, Perth now has (1,913 fuel) and (22,580 fuel requested). Brisbane has held steady and Sydney has been using a little fuel for heavy industry. Tanker carrying 50,000 arrives Brisbane and unloads. No other task forces have arrived or fueled in Australia. Tankers take two days to unload. Brisbane (70,000 fuel) (23,000 fuel requested) has not changed. Perth now has (22,396 fuel) and (22,580 fuel requested). Sydney has increase its fuel by about 30,000.

Conclude: Fuel moved from Brisbane to Perth in two days to fill the need and the balance went to Sydney. I assume it would also flow Perth --> Brisbane under similar conditions.

Interesting.

I found the post where it was stated categorically that the trace doesn't go from Perth as far as Sydney. Because of that I'd been, in 1942, dumping a lot of Perth fuel at Melbourne to avoid the Bass Strait subs, since I was reasonably sure Melbourne would flow to Sydney. But that dev post was pre-Patch 3 (maybe pre-Patch 2--I didn't check), and supply has been tweaked so many times I've lost track, so who knows now?

I've been across the Nulaboor Desert from Adelaide to Perth by train, and I agree with the devs that shipping fuel by tank car on one set of rails would not supply the east coast of Australia in wartime. A pipeline would, but there's no pipeline.

Also:

"As to your final statement that heavy industry should preclude sending fuel to Sydney, this seems to my way of playing, as I said in another post, as putting the cart before the horse. To PREVENT making valuable supplies with a portion, you PREVENT fuel from going where the war machine and your best theater shipyard lies unless it first re-negotiates sub-infested waters, which would not be necessry if you weren't trying to prevent valuable supply production.

To each his own I guess."

My point was that if a player decides to ship fuel to Australia, he will have no choice but to also support its heavy industry given how fuel flows between bases. The conclusion I draw is that if you supply Australia, bring lots more that you think you will need just for fleet operations.

I understand that, and I do bring a lot, but through CT to Perth, safely. In 1942 I had over 60 xAKs of various sizes at Perth with nothing better to do than re-distribute fuel around Oz. For me, using NZ is being so cautious as to waste valuable time and risk sub attacks. But, my style of play doesn't mess with Suva or Pago-Pago either. If the AI wants them it can have them. That wastes ITS time and ships. I can get to Oz and thence to where the war is by easier routes. But, it's individual preference, yes.

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Misconduct, I assume you are playing against the AI? In a PBEM game I would never have TKs that near the front line. There is no way in early 1942 I would have TKs going from PH to Palmyra to Pago Pago and to Suva. That is a good way to loose a bunch of TKs and/or AKs.

It's a good way against the AI too. Andy Mac designed in Cruiser Raiders of Death scripts. They are relentless once triggered. They may go very far south. I know they come up the middle and go as far north as Midway.

yeah the mobile death star just found 13 AK's loaded with fuel about 100 miles East of Pago Pago, was 2 heavy cruisers and 2 destroyers and all AK's were lost, second time so far that damn group caught me even after I went hunting for the Bismark group.

I thought I was smart having all my PBY's patrolling the course of my shipping lane, somehow the Pago PBY's missed the cruisers.

[Nomad]

I haven't really played against the AI much. Mostly practicing my own moves and testing some things. If I ever do I will have to be much more careful than I was in WitP. [8D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

yeah the mobile death star just found 13 AK's loaded with fuel about 100 miles East of Pago Pago, was 2 heavy cruisers and 2 destroyers and all AK's were lost, second time so far that damn group caught me even after I went hunting for the Bismark group.

Ouch.

Those are the guys. Always two CAs plus trim.

[vinnie71]

Which is why I nomally have a carrier TF patroling the area Canton Is to Pago Pago every so often. Normally if there is a cruiser force, it will be damaged or frightened off the shipping lanes and if there isn't, there is normally some shipping around either Baker Island or Fanufati (?) trying to either reinforce or resupply the garrisons (easy pickings!). I also take care to run one or more Carrier TFs in the begining to destroy the AMCs initially deployed by Japan north of Baker Is and Palmyra.
 
The only problem I found is that I have no idea from which port they are operating. Otherwise I would try to hammer them in port with Carrier TFs

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Which is why I nomally have a carrier TF patroling the area Canton Is to Pago Pago every so often. Normally if there is a cruiser force, it will be damaged or frightened off the shipping lanes and if there isn't, there is normally some shipping around either Baker Island or Fanufati (?) trying to either reinforce or resupply the garrisons (easy pickings!). I also take care to run one or more Carrier TFs in the begining to destroy the AMCs initially deployed by Japan north of Baker Is and Palmyra.

The only problem I found is that I have no idea from which port they are operating. Otherwise I would try to hammer them in port with Carrier TFs

I was way too Sir Robinish with my starting CVs in this game. I won't be next time. I agree that hunting Andy's Finest with CVs makes sense. I tried to go half-pregnant with tanker escorts (CLs and old DDs) and just lost them too.

I think I know where they're coming from, but I don't want to spoil it for you. I'd be very leery of going there in 1942, carriers or not.

[mjk428]

I'll agree with others in this thread that Eastern Australia is a black hole for fuel and none should be dropped there if you want to use it for the fleet. The other big change from the original game is now port size matters. It's too inefficient (& dangerous) to have convoys taking forever to unload fuel & supplies in small ports. Because of these two changes Auckland has become as important in game as it really was in the Pacific War.

I send big convoys to big ports (Pearl, Auckland, Perth, Colombo). Pearl supplies the Central Pacific, Auckland supplies the South Pacific, Perth & Colombo take care of the West side of the map - with smaller ships/convoys.

[Stvitus2002]

the AMCs initially deployed by Japan north of Baker Is and Palmyra

I know what you mean. I just lost 2 AK's west of Tahiti to 2 of these AMC's.
The Enterprise TF & AO's are now heading south on a search & destroy mission.





WO 0/0