Resource pathways

[Mike Solli]

LOL I got you fooled. [:D]
 
I like to expand airfields to have as complete coverage for my 2E bombers as possible, but I also want to make the Allies have to build as many facilities as they can.  That means I don't expand many airfields beyond level 4.  Some notable exceptions are Truk and Rabaul.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: n01487477
If you're concerned about Oil initially, you've got to get a bit to Bangkok as it only has 7 days supply, Cam Ranh Bay has a bit ... but I wouldn't worry too much about this either.

I thought that at first too, but before my little convoy got there the oil was replenished. I assume it went overland from Indochina. So don't worry.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
If Japan takes the SRA and Burma with no damage, here is the final numbers per day:

+12,700 res
-7,110 oil
+17,615 fuel
+27,435 supply

This means that Japan will most likely never utilize it's refinery capacity in Japan.

Also note that this does not take into account any infrastructure taken in China beyond what Japan controls on 7 Dec 41.

Don't forget, there is another 150 oil centers in Northern Borneo (Miri I think) that start the game damaged, so that's another 1,500 oil per day for the SRA if/when Japan repairs them. Combine that with the fact you won't be taking the SRA undamaged, and you run into the dilemma of having to decide whether to repair refining capacity in the SRA, or only repairing the oil centers and then shipping the excess oil production home.

I don't think it's worth spending a single supply point repairing anything outside of the home islands other than oil centers and perhaps resource centers, but only if you really need the extra resources.

The SRA is simply too vulnerable to attack. Allied hit and run raids in 43 can cause havoc and after 44 there's a good chance allied gains will allow them to then destroy most of what you spent all that supply repairing. Better to send it all to the home islands where production sites will be out of danger for most of the war.

After all, if the repaired refining sites in the SRA don't get to operate for at least 1000 days in order to simply pay for the cost of the repair, you've wasted a lot of supply.

Jim

[Mynok]

Definitely makes no sense to repair refineries outside the Home Islands when there is so much surplus capacity there.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
If Japan takes the SRA and Burma with no damage, here is the final numbers per day:

+12,700 res
-7,110 oil
+17,615 fuel
+27,435 supply

This means that Japan will most likely never utilize it's refinery capacity in Japan.

Also note that this does not take into account any infrastructure taken in China beyond what Japan controls on 7 Dec 41.

Don't forget, there is another 150 oil centers in Northern Borneo (Miri I think) that start the game damaged, so that's another 1,500 oil per day for the SRA if/when Japan repairs them. Combine that with the fact you won't be taking the SRA undamaged, and you run into the dilemma of having to decide whether to repair refining capacity in the SRA, or only repairing the oil centers and then shipping the excess oil production home.

I don't think it's worth spending a single supply point repairing anything outside of the home islands other than oil centers and perhaps resource centers, but only if you really need the extra resources.

The SRA is simply too vulnerable to attack. Allied hit and run raids in 43 can cause havoc and after 44 there's a good chance allied gains will allow them to then destroy most of what you spent all that supply repairing. Better to send it all to the home islands where production sites will be out of danger for most of the war.

After all, if the repaired refining sites in the SRA don't get to operate for at least 1000 days in order to simply pay for the cost of the repair, you've wasted a lot of supply.

Jim

Jim,

I agree with most of what you're talking about. I was just showing the potential of the SRA. I have one question though. You mentioned 150 damaged oil centers in Borneo. I show Miri as having 150 oil centers? Is that what you're talking about?

Also, concerning repairing facilities, you may be comparing apples with oranges. It depends on the facility as well as the situation.

HI: 1000 supply gains you 2 HI + 2 supply per day thus 500 days to "break even" with supply, but during that time you also gain 1000 HI. Situation based, in my opinion. If there's excess supply, I'll do it.

LI: 1000 supply gains you 1 supply per day. Not worth in IMO.

Refinery: 1000 supply gains you 9 fuel and 1 supply per day. Probably not worth it due to the excess refinery capacity in the Home Islands. The only reason I'd repair refineries in the SRA would be to produce fuel there without having to ship the oil to Japan. This would be based on the supply situation, of course as well as the strategic situation.

Resources: 1000 supply gains you 10 resources per day. Unless there is a huge amount of damaged resources in the SRA, it's most likely not needed.

Oil center: 1000 supply gains you 10 oil per day. I'll repair them every time. More oil means more fuel and supply. The excess refinery capacity in Japan will most likely never be entirely used.

Something else just dawned on my. At the start of the war, there is a surplus of oil in the Home Islands. All of the refinery capacity in the Home Islands will function until that surplus is used up. This means that the initial production of fuel will be relatively large until that excess is consumed. Then, the fuel production will decrease. Keep that in mind. Fuel must be hoarded or there will be some serious fuel problems when 1943-44 comes around.

[erstad]

I agree with most of what you're talking about. I was just showing the potential of the SRA. I have one question though. You mentioned 150 damaged oil centers in Borneo. I show Miri as having 150 oil centers? Is that what you're talking about?

No, Miri has 300 oil centers. 150 start damaged, 150 start undamaged. Ditto for refinery.

[Local Yokel]

Jim is quite correct! To my surprise, I found that the database record for Miri shows it as having 150 intact and 150 damaged oil centres, and also 150 intact and 150 damaged refineries. So there is an opportunity to enlarge the oil output by bases likely to be within the area of Japanese conquest.

Mike is also correct about the oil surplus, which will protract the period in which Japan's metropolitan refineries will continue to generate fuel to their full capacity. The table I posted near the start of this thread shows that, assuming zero daily oil production within the 'at start' Empire but efficient carriage of oil to where it's required, its stockpiled reserves of oil can sustain Empire refineries for 273 days. If the little oil the Empire produces is efficiently transported to its refineries, the additional oil produced extends the oil reach 'at start' to 347 days.

Intact capture of the SRA oil centres and refineries leads to the addition of 250 daily oil points in excess of the SRA's added refining capacity. Put differently, capture of these facilities intact does nothing to ease the shortage of oil for the Home Islands refineries unless you ship oil to these refineries rather than those in the SRA (primarily Palembang). So you still have to make a choice between refining close to your heavy industry production facilities or close to your oil production facilities. Either way, there will still be a need for substantial tanker shipments to Japan, whether of oil or fuel.

If the Japanese player captures all the SRA and Burmese refineries and oil centres intact, the additional oil generated still falls far short of what the aggregate refining capacity can process (about 32,900 oil points demanded by refineries per day against about 25,000 daily oil points to satisfy that demand). So the probability is that the oil stockpile will reduce to zero no matter how fortunate the Japanese player is in capturing facilities undamaged.

My calculations suggest that the amount of production that an intact Empire with captured SRA facilities can sustain without stockpiles is severely restricted. The maximum number of sustainable HI centres I calculate to be 5634, giving 11,268 HI points daily and the same amount of supply. With the addition of supply coming from light industry, aggregate sustainable supply production is around 20,968 per day. That is to be compared with a maximum daily supply output of Empire + SRA + Burma of about 27,170. I won't guarantee my figures are accurate but I think that is the best picture the Japanese player can be looking at once the hoarded stocks are gone. Much will therefore depend upon whether fuel and/or oil can be shipped to Japan in sufficient quantities to eke out her reserves of those commodities over several years. The Japanese player will also have to decide what compromise to make between the demands of industry for fuel and the demands of shipping, both military and merchant.

[morphin]

Hi

In my calculation i found that you don't have the capacity to transport all the oil and fuel back to japan. I only get fuel back to japan because

1) you even don't have enough capacitiy to transport all the fuel back to japan!!! (without oil)
2) 10 oil produce 9 fuel -> so it is more effiecient to transport fuel back to japan
3) fuel has spoilage, oil has no spoilage -> as long as it has fuel left -> transport fuel, otherwise you can transport oil back to japan

4) as soon as singapore is captured -> use it as a hub. Transport all fuel from palembang, miri (yes also miri), Medan, Singkep with small tk to singapore and use the big ones with big TF to get the fuel back to japan.
5) Also use Soerabaja as a hub and transport everything from Boela, Babo and Balikpapan to Soerabja.

Make 4 big TF with min 8 big TK/AO and get the fuel back from this 2 hubs. Garde them heavy against sub.

Andy

[Mynok]

There's no need to transport fuel to Japan. You have massive excess of refining capacity there which will generate all the fuel you need for the HI economy. You need to move oil, not fuel.

Which is exactly historical.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


There's no need to transport fuel to Japan. You have massive excess of refining capacity there which will generate all the fuel you need for the HI economy. You need to move oil, not fuel.

You sure? Witpstaff shows a fuel deficit in the home islands. Not as bad as the oil deficit, but still a deficit.

[Jim D Burns]

Sending the Oil actually reduces the amount of fuel you get home by 1 in 10 load points, so it's better to send just the fuel if you need fuel.

For example, 1000 points of oil will produce 100 supply and 900 fuel at the home island refineries. The 900 fuel then gets used by 450 heavy industry to produce 900 supplies and 900 HI points. While 1000 points of fuel gets used by 500 heavy industry and produces 1000 supply and 1000 HI.

So for an equal load cost, 1000 oil produces 1000 supplies and 900 HI, while 1000 fuel produces 1000 supplies and 1000 HI. So it's easier to utilize your full heavy industry potential if you send just fuel. It's also easier to exceed fuel demands at the home islands and build up you fuel stockpiles if you ship just the fuel, since you gain an extra 100 fuel for every 1000 load points you ship.

I'd only send the oil home if the ability to refine it was severely damaged at the SRA refineries. In that case it definitely is not worth spending supplies rebuilding the refineries, so send the oil home. Otherwise just send the fuel.

Jim

[morphin]

Jim is right. It the refinery in SRA is intact, send fuel back. And even then you don't have the capacity to bring back all the fuel


Andy

[Local Yokel]

morphin, I have yet to do any of the calculations you have performed about tanker capacity, although your conclusion about shortage of capacity doesn't surprise me.

Have you taken account of new tonnage and conversions? In time you can build 44 Standard 'A' tankers, and 90 Standard 'A' xAK's will become available for conversion into tankers.

Also, have you taken into account the fuel cost of moving oil or fuel to their destinations? If it is only marginally advantageous to move oil to refineries in the SRA and fuel from the SRA to Japan, then the fuel cost of doing so (which may otherwise only be of marginal effect) could become a significant factor in the choice made.

The calculations may show that I'm completely wrong, but there could be a case on tanker fuel economy grounds for shipping some oil to the Palembang refinery (where there is a 1200 point daily shortfall of oil relative to refining capacity), and some oil to Japan. Not necessarily true that it must be 'all fuel' or 'all oil' to Japan; the third way of a combination may be better.

Does anyone know the formula for converting a ship's daily expenditure of endurance points into a fuel value? Without this I see no way of bringing tanker fuel expenditure into the reckoning.

[morphin]

Hi
In my calculations i included the fuel cost, but not the arriving ship and converstions. I see that you get a few more TK and can convert, but maybe you loose also TK. But you don't get many TK in 42.
For conversions you are a little bit in a dilemma. You could also use the xAK for resource/supply moving, but probably yes you have to convert some into TK

i do not have my calulations ready to distribute

Andy

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
The calculations may show that I'm completely wrong, but there could be a case on tanker fuel economy grounds for shipping some oil to the Palembang refinery (where there is a 1200 point daily shortfall of oil relative to refining capacity), and some oil to Japan. Not necessarily true that it must be 'all fuel' or 'all oil' to Japan; the third way of a combination may be better.

The basic concept seems pretty inarguable to me:

1. Japan has a huge overcapacity in refining.

2. This capacity is well out of range of destruction until late in the war.

3. This is the capacity that should be emphasized.

I will bet that maybe one in 100 times will you get an undamaged SRA.

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
Does anyone know the formula for converting a ship's daily expenditure of endurance points into a fuel value? Without this I see no way of bringing tanker fuel expenditure into the reckoning.

The formula I've been using is:

Endurance / Fuel = x
distance travelled / x = tons of fuel consumed at cruise speed

This was based on WitP but a thread in general discussion for AE has so far failed to garner a single reply on whether this formula still holds true for AE. How mission and full speeds impact upon this, I haven't investigated since WitP. I think in WitP the multiplier for full speed turned out to be something like 5 times the fuel consumption. [edit: seems to be 4x cruise speed fuel consumption in AE]. When ships switch to full speed during mission speed is something I'm not sure about.

I'm working slowly through the IJN for fuel consumption rates but I've yet to try to put them into Excel from my notes. If my assumption for the calculation is incorrect, I'd appreciate correction

edit: always helps to copy the calculation correctly heh

[Q-Ball]

Guys, I was on vacation for a week and a half, off the grid and on the beach. As a JFB, this thread is GREAT! You have saved me hours of work, and I'm glad someone is doing the analysis on this.

Domo Arigato, fellow warriors![&o]

[Local Yokel]

Zebedee, thank you for posting your formula; looks like this may offer a starting point, but we will still need some test voyages to get the necessary bunker expenditure figures. I have started to do this with a range of one-ship TF's in the Guadalacanal scenario, but so far have run one turn only. The test needs to be run over a number of days to arrive at a reliable figure for fuel expenditure today, on the assumption that some of the fuel consumed in any one turn represents 'partial' travel into the next hex that will be taken into account in establishing total hexes travelled in the next following turn.

The results the one turn/day test surprised me, as they suggest a wide variation in rates of fuel consumption between classes. All the more important, therefore, to continue these ships' voyages and get reliable data on fuel consumption rates. 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. Extended voyages will also yield reliable rates of advance we can use to establish a cycle time for a potential route, inclusive of both sailing and transhipment times.

At first sight one might think that cruise speed is always going to be the speed of choice for best operational efficiency. However, I suppose operating at higher speed and thereby reducing journey cycle times could result in a higher rate of cargo transfer between two ports that justifies the increased fuel expenditure - depending on your priorities. Consequently I will try to repeat the tests at speeds higher than cruise.

Problem is finding time for this. As soon as I get down to looking at AE I receive another turn in my ongoing WitP PBEM - my opponent is cranking them out faster than I can deal with them!

[Tophat1815]

 I am into the 3rd week of my AE pbem campaign now. Drawing resources from Korea and outer islands with small convoys.

 My opponent is causing me trouble in China and I am having difficulty keeping lanes open to Chinese cities with industry,resources,etc..

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Zebedee, thank you for posting your formula; looks like this may offer a starting point, but we will still need some test voyages to get the necessary bunker expenditure figures. I have started to do this with a range of one-ship TF's in the Guadalacanal scenario, but so far have run one turn only. The test needs to be run over a number of days to arrive at a reliable figure for fuel expenditure today, on the assumption that some of the fuel consumed in any one turn represents 'partial' travel into the next hex that will be taken into account in establishing total hexes travelled in the next following turn.

The results the one turn/day test surprised me, as they suggest a wide variation in rates of fuel consumption between classes. All the more important, therefore, to continue these ships' voyages and get reliable data on fuel consumption rates. 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. Extended voyages will also yield reliable rates of advance we can use to establish a cycle time for a potential route, inclusive of both sailing and transhipment times.

At first sight one might think that cruise speed is always going to be the speed of choice for best operational efficiency. However, I suppose operating at higher speed and thereby reducing journey cycle times could result in a higher rate of cargo transfer between two ports that justifies the increased fuel expenditure - depending on your priorities. Consequently I will try to repeat the tests at speeds higher than cruise.

Problem is finding time for this. As soon as I get down to looking at AE I receive another turn in my ongoing WitP PBEM - my opponent is cranking them out faster than I can deal with them!

Hi Local Yokel,

there is some variance as you point out. To add to possible switches to full speed during travel on mission speed and whether fractions of hexes are counted as full hexes or not, the manual also states that TF leaders have an impact on fuel consumption (does this mean ships' captains also have an impact?). I'm slowly learning how to use the editor so I think I need to make a sandbox to identify factors in an environment where they can be controlled.

At best the 'logical' calculation of how this thing work represents a ballpark figure. Something for me to do this weekend I think while running some test turns with the beta patch. I'd definitely concur that different classes have a fairly wide difference in fuel consumption rates (logically so I guess), whether merchant or naval. Take a look at the Shinano (11/44) for a fuel hog

Good luck with the PBEM, and appreciate the time you and the others put into clarifying the obscure and arcane

edit: Just to bring something entirely different in, Don Bowen confirms that naval support of HQs gets applied over its command radius, with diminishing effect the further from the HQ's location. tm.asp?m=2220909