Not enough endurance?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

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

Post Reply
User avatar
cblattmann
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:20 pm

Not enough endurance?

Post by cblattmann »

I just started to learn this game and I cam across this which I do not understand. Maybe someone can help me.

I created this taskforce with ships that have enough endurance (14700 and 13600) to sail from San Francisco to Sidney. I set the destination to Sidney and the home port to San Francisco. Even though I specified that the taskforce can fuel up in Sidney for the trip back it tells me that only one ship, the Spica (displayed in green), has the range (14700) for this entire trip. All other ships (Steel Exporter, Steel Navigator, Steel Seafarer, Steel Trader, Steel Voyager, Walter Luckenbach and the Admiral Cole) with endurances of 13600 are in red and for some reason do not have the range(?) even though they will all be fueled up in Sidney.

How is this possible?

Image
Attachments
TFinthered.jpg
TFinthered.jpg (453.02 KiB) Viewed 428 times
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Alfred »

Possible refueling en route to and back is not taken into account.

Alfred
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Ian R »

Can you please reduce the size of your image, it is blowing out the page margins.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5537
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Yaab »

There are WITP:AE players who lack endurance too.
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Ambassador »

You do not need a full refuel in Sydney, you may limit the refueling to minimal or tactical. Otherwise, you’re wasting TK shipping capacity, or depleting your fuel reserves in Oz.

You may also set up a gas station on the way, by using Christmas Island or Tahiti (for example), and shipping fuel there (you also need to build the port & airfield). You may then route your convoys with a waypoint there, setting a refueling option there instead of in Australia. This will limit the quantity of fuel you have to ship to refuel your supply convoys, and limit the time take by tankers to ship that fuel.[;)]
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 14766
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by btd64 »

Welcome to the game. The numbers are in red because if those ships tried to make the journey by themselves they wouldn't of made it. As mentioned you would need to refuel them somewhere. Either an island base or at Sydney. But remember that they will stay red until they can make the journey home without assistance....GP
IntelUltra7 16cores, 32gb ram, NvidiaGeForceRTX 2050
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
WIS Manual Team Lead & Beta Support Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command" Gen. George S. Patton
JWS Discord https://discord.gg/g8skvk9A
User avatar
cblattmann
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:20 pm

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by cblattmann »

I appreciate all the replies. But let me rephrase the question.

It is about 7,000 nm from San Francisco to Sidney. All tankers have endurances far greater than that and can easily make a one way trip (as seen in the upper part of my image). All numbers are in green when I set the home part to Sidney which I understand makes this a one way trip.

When I make this a return trip by setting the return harbor to San Francisco all but one number are in red. The one that is in green is a tanker that can make the trip without having to refuel. All others are in red because there endurance falls a bit short of being able to make the trip without refueling. Therefore I changed the refueling option. ). No matter what option I chose, the numbers never changed to green. On a full-refuel as shown in the image the numbers should be green because these tankers just crossed the Pacific (proofing they can do when fully fueled). So why are the number still in red?

Am I missing something here?
Attachments
TankerEndurance.jpg
TankerEndurance.jpg (353.5 KiB) Viewed 429 times
User avatar
Trugrit
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:31 pm
Location: North Carolina

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Trugrit »


You are missing something. The Task force has not crossed the ocean yet.

The Red numbers are just a warning for you. That is all they are.
The Task Force Commander is giving you a Fuel Report based on the current situation,
Not what may happen in the future. In a war the future is not a sure thing.

That is the way the game is designed and it is the best way.

The game does not take into account what happens at Sydney because by the
time the task force gets to Sydney there may not be any fuel there at all.

Try this exercise. Set your task force destination to Tokyo and set it to refuel.
Watch what the task force tells you.

You need to careful in this game.

"A man's got to know his limitations" -Dirty Harry
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Ambassador »

ORIGINAL: cblattmann

I appreciate all the replies. But let me rephrase the question.

It is about 7,000 nm from San Francisco to Sidney. All tankers have endurances far greater than that and can easily make a one way trip (as seen in the upper part of my image). All numbers are in green when I set the home part to Sidney which I understand makes this a one way trip.

When I make this a return trip by setting the return harbor to San Francisco all but one number are in red. The one that is in green is a tanker that can make the trip without having to refuel. All others are in red because there endurance falls a bit short of being able to make the trip without refueling. Therefore I changed the refueling option. ). No matter what option I chose, the numbers never changed to green. On a full-refuel as shown in the image the numbers should be green because these tankers just crossed the Pacific (proofing they can do when fully fueled). So why are the number still in red?

Am I missing something here?
As Alfred already wrote, the refueling possibilities are not taken into account when determining the colors. After all, you might not have enough fuel there when your ships arrive.
And you have no tankers in that screenshot, only cargoes (and an auxiliary).

The direct trip from SF to Sydney is 176 hexes (or sometimes 177, depending on some routing options/calculations). An Isthmian has an endurance of 340 hexes, so you’re short 12-14 hexes even in the best of circumstances, but you really shouldn’t embark on a direct routing from WC to Oz, as it will take you through the middle of the Marshalls-Gilberts (and in range from G3M/G4M at Roi-Namur).

To see the numbers green again, you’ll have to wait after a refueling operation. You can either send a Federal-class tanker from LA to Christmas (and probably delay the departure of your cargoes a day or two), or load the AO tenders in LA to do an undersea replenishment of your cargo TF, or include an AO in the TF.

A routing through Christmas, and then two waypoints south of the Tongas will add 12-20 hexes, depending on how far south you’ll go, making the round trip around 370, give or take. That’s an extra 30 hexes over the endurance. Christmas is only around 80 hexes away from SF, so topping the cargoes’ fuel tanks there is enough to make the round trip. You don’t even need to plan a full refuel, tactical may be enough, as the TF may take the same route to RTB.
Or you may do a full refuel, but change the routing on the way back.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20541
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: cblattmann

I appreciate all the replies. But let me rephrase the question.

It is about 7,000 nm from San Francisco to Sidney. All tankers have endurances far greater than that and can easily make a one way trip (as seen in the upper part of my image). All numbers are in green when I set the home part to Sidney which I understand makes this a one way trip.

When I make this a return trip by setting the return harbor to San Francisco all but one number are in red. The one that is in green is a tanker that can make the trip without having to refuel. All others are in red because there endurance falls a bit short of being able to make the trip without refueling. Therefore I changed the refueling option. ). No matter what option I chose, the numbers never changed to green. On a full-refuel as shown in the image the numbers should be green because these tankers just crossed the Pacific (proofing they can do when fully fueled). So why are the number still in red?

Am I missing something here?
The AI does not take into account your en-route refueling, just the current range of the ship with the fuel onboard OR if the longest range ship can afford to donate fuel to the ones that cannot make it on their own fuel, it will average out the fuel for the group and calculate the round trip on that. In your example, the largest ship cannot afford enough fuel to the other ships to get the whole group back to home port, so it shows some in red for the trip. That will change to green when they take on "minimum fuel" somewhere along the route.

The other way to manage this is to change the home base to something closer to the destination (like Pearl Harbor) so that the numbers all turn green. But that home base may not have enough fuel to send out to Australia in future so you would have to reroute them to LA after they take on minimal fuel there.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
NiclasCage
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:22 am

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by NiclasCage »

As already stated several times here - any refueling you've told your TF to do at Sydney is not taken into account in regards to the coloring of these numbers.
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Kull »

In a related vein, you'll see a number of US Army units arrive either at Bora Bora, or prepped to go there. Historically, that's because it was chosen as an interim location for convoy re-supply and fueling. You aren't the only guy who realized that merchants couldn't make it straight through to Australia and back - Admiral King knew it too!
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Ambassador »

ORIGINAL: Kull

In a related vein, you'll see a number of US Army units arrive either at Bora Bora, or prepped to go there. Historically, that's because it was chosen as an interim location for convoy re-supply and fueling. You aren't the only guy who realized that merchants couldn't make it straight through to Australia and back - Admiral King knew it too!
And the Japanese player (in a PBEM) will also realize that, so better have enough naval and aerial assets to hunt submarines (or other surface raiders).
User avatar
cblattmann
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:20 pm

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by cblattmann »

I wanted to thank you for your answers. I really appreciate it. I just started to play this game (have a little bit of WITW experience) but completely new to WITP AE. It has been on my list for maybe a year but I was always a bit intimidated by its scale and complexity.

I watched all of cbrandonellis tutorials videos (they are excellent) and I am working through Kull's setup spreadsheet. But sometimes I come across things like the coloring that have me a bit stumped. But they help me through a very slow first Allied turn. But I am learning a lot.

Thank you to you all to take a bit of your time and help me.
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by Dili »

See the red as an indication that you will need to refuel the TF somewhere in that voyage.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18909
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: cblattmann

I wanted to thank you for your answers. I really appreciate it. I just started to play this game (have a little bit of WITW experience) but completely new to WITP AE. It has been on my list for maybe a year but I was always a bit intimidated by its scale and complexity.

I watched all of cbrandonellis tutorials videos (they are excellent) and I am working through Kull's setup spreadsheet. But sometimes I come across things like the coloring that have me a bit stumped. But they help me through a very slow first Allied turn. But I am learning a lot.

Thank you to you all to take a bit of your time and help me.

I suggest that you start with the Coral Sea scenario, then do the Guadalcanal scenario, instead of trying the Grand Campaign.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Not enough endurance?

Post by geofflambert »

You'll be getting reports that the TF doesn't have enough fuel to complete the mission as well. Annoying. This is even when you mix ships that can make it with ships that can't, but the ships that can also have enough to refuel the others along the way. You get used to it.

Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”