Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post bug reports and ask for help with other issues here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Pascal_slith
Posts: 1657
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:39 am
Location: In Arizona now!

Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post by Pascal_slith »

I brought this up in the AE Naval and OOB issues.

I have the Enterprise TF at position 167, 119 with 6 cruisers and 9 DD's escorting. I have a second TF in the same hex, a replenishment TF with Neosho and 2 DD's.

When I clicked on 'replenish TF at sea', the Ops column indicates 250 for all the Enterprise TF ships and 250 for the Neosho. This is very surprising as to replenish this size TF from a single oiler would have taken pretty much all day. Even as the Neosho could refuel 2 ships at the same time, and let's say the Enterprise could refuel destroyers before topping off itself, the whole operation is quite complicated and could not be finished in a quarter of a day.

Is the replenishment calculator in WitP AE running correctly? I am running version 1084

Here is the save that Don requested.

Attachments
wpae110.zip
(2.42 MiB) Downloaded 6 times
So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

Image
User avatar
michaelm75au
Posts: 12465
Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

RE: Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post by michaelm75au »

I think that there were changes to TFREP in 1094.
Michael
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5192
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I think that there were changes to TFREP in 1094.

Yes there were. I'll check out the save and see if anything looks off.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5192
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post by Don Bowen »


Well, it's not wrong but is sorta-kinda wrong. The minimum charge for underway refueling is 250 ops points. That includes all the coming along side, rigging and unrigging, etc. There is also a 250 point minimum charge to the oiler. Ops points may be greater if fuel is actually transferred, but none of the ships in the Enterprise TF required any fuel.

So it's sort-kinda right that all ships should get a 250 ops point charge for getting ready to fuel but obviously wrong that ships should come along side, rig, etc when their fuel tanks are full. There is code to prevent ops usage if no fuel is available, I'll add a check to also prevent it if no fuel is needed.

On the other hand, maybe there should be a penalty for pushing too many buttons....
User avatar
Pascal_slith
Posts: 1657
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:39 am
Location: In Arizona now!

RE: Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post by Pascal_slith »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Well, it's not wrong but is sorta-kinda wrong. The minimum charge for underway refueling is 250 ops points. That includes all the coming along side, rigging and unrigging, etc. There is also a 250 point minimum charge to the oiler. Ops points may be greater if fuel is actually transferred, but none of the ships in the Enterprise TF required any fuel.

So it's sort-kinda right that all ships should get a 250 ops point charge for getting ready to fuel but obviously wrong that ships should come along side, rig, etc when their fuel tanks are full. There is code to prevent ops usage if no fuel is available, I'll add a check to also prevent it if no fuel is needed.

On the other hand, maybe there should be a penalty for pushing too many buttons....

Well, they all were at less than full tanks (they had been at sea for 2 days). The range is showing the full amount because what you're seeing is after I pushed the replenish at sea. Here is the file from the previous day. The two TF's are set to meet.

Attachments
wpae109.zip
(2.41 MiB) Downloaded 6 times
So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

Image
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5192
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post by Don Bowen »


Not sure if there is an issue.

TF 109 is set to Meet/Refuel. The ships in TF 406 are at about 90% fuel, so they only need topping off.

In turn execution of save 109, TF 109 reaches TF 406 and refuels. About 2500 tons of fuel total is transferred to all 16 ships of TF 406.

The oiler and all the ships in TF 406 expend ops but these are cleared at the start of the next turn (save 110).

Two points.

1). We're not going to do anything with this now. We just want to get any problems with Patch 2 beta fixed.

2). I have no idea if it is unreasonable for a single oiler to transfer 2500 tons of fuel in one day. If someone can convince me that it is, we might make some adjustments to ops usage of oilers refueling multiple ships at some time in the future.


User avatar
Pascal_slith
Posts: 1657
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:39 am
Location: In Arizona now!

RE: Strange Ops numbers for underway replenishment

Post by Pascal_slith »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Not sure if there is an issue.

TF 109 is set to Meet/Refuel. The ships in TF 406 are at about 90% fuel, so they only need topping off.

In turn execution of save 109, TF 109 reaches TF 406 and refuels. About 2500 tons of fuel total is transferred to all 16 ships of TF 406.

The oiler and all the ships in TF 406 expend ops but these are cleared at the start of the next turn (save 110).

Two points.

1). We're not going to do anything with this now. We just want to get any problems with Patch 2 beta fixed.

2). I have no idea if it is unreasonable for a single oiler to transfer 2500 tons of fuel in one day. If someone can convince me that it is, we might make some adjustments to ops usage of oilers refueling multiple ships at some time in the future.



OK, thanks.

For point 2, I'll hunt down the relevant passages in the two sources I mentioned in my main forum post.
So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”