Page 472 of 708
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:34 am
by Canoerebel
He might stand in the jungle hexes between Moulmein and Bangkok.
Once he's pushed back into clear terrain, he's at the mercy of the Allied airforce, if I can manage supply.
He may be focusing on stopping the flow of supply to Rangoon/Moulmein in hopes of limiting my air power. That's a good plan, and he can do it if he keeps carriers stationed nearby. But that's a trade I'll take.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:33 pm
by jwolf
Thanks for the feedback on the ops in the Burma area. Is it worth it to invade Port Blair, in order to protect the shipping route to Rangoon?
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:35 pm
by Canoerebel
It would be worth it if I had six ships* available for duty.
*An exaggeration. I actually have more than six. But I don't have enough to carry invasion troops nor enough to provide CAP against the big airfield there. The Indian Ocean navy is exeedingly small, which is why drawing a Mini KB and several BBs has been a notable "accounting" achievement.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:44 pm
by JohnDillworth
which is why drawing a Mini KB and several BBs has been a notable "accounting" achievement.
Any of those short legged British subs available to cause mischief?
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:50 pm
by Canoerebel
Perhaps 10, but most of the British subs are now based out of the DEI. The long, skinny nature of the Allied territory means there are lots of good sea lanes within range of even the short-legged subs.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:38 pm
by Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Yes, of course! Why didn't I think of that? That's a possibliity, and not longterm either. I'll be moving up the Luzon peninsula pretty soon, and it makes sense to keep some damaged ships nearby rather than risking a long trip home through sub-patrolled waters.
I have four ARDs on map now - three pretty far forward and the fourth just leaving San Francisco. One of the ARDs has repaired damage on CVE Manila Bay from 66 down to 52. Once the ship's speed is up to about 7 or 8 knots, I'll remove her from the ARD and send her to a shipyard.
If all you're fixing on that ship is floatation, leave her in the ARD on critical. She'll repair faster than any shipyard but Seattle or Eastern USA. Unless you have other ships to fix, of course.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:53 pm
by Lowpe
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Yes, of course! Why didn't I think of that? That's a possibliity, and not longterm either. I'll be moving up the Luzon peninsula pretty soon, and it makes sense to keep some damaged ships nearby rather than risking a long trip home through sub-patrolled waters.
I have four ARDs on map now - three pretty far forward and the fourth just leaving San Francisco. One of the ARDs has repaired damage on CVE Manila Bay from 66 down to 52. Once the ship's speed is up to about 7 or 8 knots, I'll remove her from the ARD and send her to a shipyard.
If all you're fixing on that ship is floatation, leave her in the ARD on critical. She'll repair faster than any shipyard but Seattle or Eastern USA. Unless you have other ships to fix, of course.
Seriously, all but 20 major engine damage could be repaired if you have the nec. ships close to the front lines assuming she has higher priority over other ships.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:59 pm
by Canoerebel
Absent a grave emergency, I wouldn't think of using a seriously damaged capital ship - especially a fleet carrier - in hostile waters. I work pretty hard at getting them out of harm's way and, whenever possible, to an appropriate shipyard.
I know different players see this aspect of the game differently. Nearly every time my ships or subs encounter an enemy combat TF, there are multiple ships blowing smoke. So John is willing to, or forced to, use ships that have been rode hard. I see that early in the game, even.
I try not to ride my ships to hard, though sometimes it's necessary.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:24 pm
by Lowpe
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Absent a grave emergency, I wouldn't think of using a seriously damaged capital ship - especially a fleet carrier - in hostile waters. I work pretty hard at getting them out of harm's way and, whenever possible, to an appropriate shipyard.
I know different players see this aspect of the game differently. Nearly every time my ships or subs encounter an enemy combat TF, there are multiple ships blowing smoke. So John is willing to, or forced to, use ships that have been rode hard. I see that early in the game, even.
I try not to ride my ships to hard, though sometimes it's necessary.
I think Tiemanj ran his ships really hard against me, and probably would have kept using her after basic repairs could be done....not 100% sure, but pretty sure.
As the Allies you operate a little on the loss avoidance mindset, whereas most JFB's that get late just want to get their VP back out of their ships before they go down.[:)]
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:58 pm
by Canoerebel
While I try to avoid using ships blowing smoke, I am willing to lose PPs to withdrawal delays when I think it's worth it.
Different strokes for different folks.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:00 pm
by Canoerebel
5/22/44
Burma: The Allies may well take Moulmein tomorrow, as John is clearly pulling out.
Fun House: Loading of 11th East African Division is taking a bit of time, so the invasion of Panay is probably about five days away.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:31 pm
by Canoerebel
Here's an oddity. I'm not looking for answers, just pointing it out.
Two TFs with ships due to withdraw departed Death Star and the Herd three days ago. One TF is fast xAP (slowest ship is 21 knots) and an SC. The second TF is CA Sussex and four DD (slowest ship is 32 knots). Both TFs started at the same place, both set to mission speed, and the xAP TF has traveled one hex farther.
That's weird.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:23 pm
by Mike McCreery
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Here's an oddity. I'm not looking for answers, just pointing it out.
Two TFs with ships due to withdraw departed Death Star and the Herd three days ago. One TF is fast xAP (slowest ship is 21 knots) and an SC. The second TF is CA Sussex and four DD (slowest ship is 32 knots). Both TFs started at the same place, both set to mission speed, and the xAP TF has traveled one hex farther.
That's weird.
Maybe the DD's had to refuel?
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:30 pm
by Canoerebel
No, fuel levels were good in both TFs.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:21 pm
by BillBrown
Do not look at maximum speed, look at cruise speed, that is what they are using when at mission speed and just moving.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:47 am
by crsutton
For most merchant ships and liners mission speed is actually full speed or very close to it. That is not the case with warships. Commercial ships are are not designed for slow cruising speed but to operate at the top speed that they are capable of. Any merchant ship that I worked on ran at 90 to 95% boiler capacity at all times. Time is money. So, a fast liner might cruise at 24 knots while warships will cruise at around 18 knots or so. This may be what happened here. After all, the trans-Atlantic crossing record for a big ship is held by the SS United States-not a warship.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:40 am
by JohnDillworth
SS United States
she was given engines and HP equivalent to a Forrestal-class aircraft carrier and was built for quick conversion to a fast troop carrier. She was a warship underneath
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:31 pm
by Panther Bait
Regardless of how the SS United States was intended to be used, crsutton is 100% correct that the economics of merchant ships (certainly xAP or xAK, and probably even AP/AK/APA/AKA) don't support the concept of the cruise speed/full speed dynamic. Warships only have it because much of the time they don't need to be moving at full speed and full speed for a warship is very inefficient. On the opposite side of things, a merchant ship basically never has a need to go 1/2 speed. You're cruising or you're stopped, anything else is a waste of fuel and money.
Mike
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:36 pm
by Canoerebel
I never thought about it that way. I'm learning new things.
On the issue of the speed of those two TFs, it is the difference between mission speed and cruise speed that resulted in the merchants outpacing the cruiser. The CA/DD TF with the 32-knot mission speed has 15-knot cruise speed. The xAP TF with the 22-knot mission speed has 22-knot cruise speed.
CA Sussex is due for withdrawal in two days. By then she'll be clearing the Torres Strait. Soon thereafter I'll set her to full speed for the run to Sydney.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:17 pm
by Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: crsutton
For most merchant ships and liners mission speed is actually full speed or very close to it. That is not the case with warships. Commercial ships are are not designed for slow cruising speed but to operate at the top speed that they are capable of. Any merchant ship that I worked on ran at 90 to 95% boiler capacity at all times. Time is money. So, a fast liner might cruise at 24 knots while warships will cruise at around 18 knots or so. This may be what happened here. After all, the trans-Atlantic crossing record for a big ship is held by the SS United States-not a warship.
Except for the SC that was with her, which should have had a cruise speed of 15 still.