Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

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

User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Fletchers can be good at everything.

Gearings were even better, but they didn't come along until the end of the war. The Gearings incorporated lessons learned with the Fletchers. They made the hull a little bit wider to allow three dual gun turrets instead of 5X single mounts and they made the ship longer to increase the fuel tank size. By reducing the number of turrets, they lowered topside weight and increased the ship's punch. The Fletcher was never really designed for Pacific use. It was always considered too short legged compared to what the USN really wanted. They were going to design a longer hull variant for the Pacific, but never got around to putting it into production until they did the bigger redesign for the Gearing.

Bill

Well, except that in game the Gearings have much less armor (Belt/Deck 5/5 instead of 18/12), and the Sumners don't have any at all. This is a huge part of why Fletchers are so good - they can take on IJN DDs and plenty of the hits will bounce off of armor.

Their earlier arrival also tends to mean that their crews are more experienced than the Gearings by the time the Gearings arrive, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the ships themselves.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19688
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

Post by BBfanboy »

Don't know if it was a post-war feature or not, but the Gearing class DDs I visited had the 3"50 dual guns instead of 40mm. These AA guns had longer range and a good rate of fire. Under director control they had a good chance of shooting down fast moving targets.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

If someone has some more tips how I can protect Guadalcanal from bombardements by Allied fleets bring it up (mines and subs are aleady there), night bombing not allowed. Anti shipping air will not hit, as the ships are gone at daylight.

Also just to clear that up, the MOONLIGHT needs to be as low as possible to favour the Japanese, correct? Sorry for dumb questions, but I only played the AI before and did not even care about this issue - the AI would send its ships eventually in range of my air and better fleets anyway....eg. 50% moonlight or lower would be ok, but I have over 80% at the moment, so better not risk anything [&:]

Thanks [&o]

Don't know what to say. I believe you said your game is in early '42 and I just can't see how you got in this condition so early on to tell you the truth. I know mines won't do much against bombardment missions and neither will mini-subs, besides you don't have too many of those at this point.

CD guns would be best, but Japan has few and most if not all are static at this point. I would just flood the approaches with subs if he is being so regular. Eventually you should damage some of his ships. Hopefully enough for him to give up. Heck I just had an RO sub put two fish into Warspite (sorry warspite1) in my game. She won't sink, but I'll bet its back to the yards for her.

One other thing, I'd say based on your description of what your opponent has done and the time of the game, he's put all his 'eggs in one basket', so to speak. I can't see that he would have many forces to oppose you elsewhere. maybe you could find an area that he considers sensitive and apply pressure there in the hopes of diverting some of his effort.

I can tell you in my game I've got almost 250 LB A/C in the Rabaul/Solomons/New Guinea area and there are airfields for them to operate from as far down as Munda and Milne Bay. I also haven't denuded other areas of operations. I just put a few more forces in the Philippines and I got done there in mid-March. I'm currently in early April '42. Now I know I'm playing the AI, but in a PBEM I would expect the Southeast area of operations to be a potential hot spot. Therefore I plan to have forces there accordingly. If my opponent were to apply pressure elsewhere hopefully my preps in those areas should suffice to deter and defeat such early efforts. IOW you can't neglect other areas of the Empire.

Beyond this I really don't know what to say. Maybe some other with more experience/insight may chime in to give you their pearls of wisdom.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

Post by Lokasenna »

How to kill Allied bombardment TFs in 1942, you ask?

KB, I say. Torpedo planes make CAs and BBs go glug-glug.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Well, except that in game the Gearings have much less armor (Belt/Deck 5/5 instead of 18/12), and the Sumners don't have any at all. This is a huge part of why Fletchers are so good - they can take on IJN DDs and plenty of the hits will bounce off of armor.

Their earlier arrival also tends to mean that their crews are more experienced than the Gearings by the time the Gearings arrive, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the ships themselves.

I don't know why the Gearings have much less armor in the WW II time frame. After the war a lot of the topside steel was replaced with aluminum which dramatically reduced topside weight. I knew someone who served on the Gearing in Vietnam and they did close in bombardment. He said it was terrifying because the aluminum would spall when hit with just rifle rounds making it more dangerous to be inside something topside than out in the open.

When built during the war I thought the early Gearings had similar armoring as the Fletchers. That's probably something to look at for scenario updates.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
Alpha77
Posts: 2149
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:38 am

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

Post by Alpha77 »

Some of the Allies paid for the evil actions. I used 2-3 hints from here and waited this time for better low moonlight...so thanks. Ofc it would be better had still had Yamato with the now better knowledge [:(]

But BB Fuso just proved that I listed her in the "good ships" this time made up for it, a Kongo tho was not so good :) Will post the combat reports later in the AAR..the "recon" or advance guard with CLs this time worked too. But Allies at disadvantage they were landing at Lunga so some ships probably low on ammo from landing support fire.
Post Reply

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