Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/6/2019 4:07:11 PM   
Cuprite


Posts: 6
Joined: 6/13/2016
From: London, UK
Status: offline
First campaign game newby question as Japanese player part way through Day 2 orders.
I note Kull's advice in his set-up spreadsheet suggests advancing selected port / airfield / fort facilities which are noted by base.
I note also the status quo at many more bases other than those itemised by Kull would be to continue constructing port / airfield / fort facilities?
I guess resource constraints - engineers and supply in particular, will probably dictate the trade-offs in deferring construction, but have no feel for what is viable in the context of the campaign game economy.
Should I imply the advice is to defer construction of ports / airfields / forts unless specifically noted otherwise?
Feedback appreciated, thanks
Post #: 1
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/6/2019 4:44:13 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2052
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
What kind of status quo do you mean? Game has switches that either start or stop construction on all the bases when you start the game. It is advisable for the Allies to stop anything except forts and then select certain hub rear bases to expand ports and airfields. This way you would know where to pile your engineers, and not help Japan with handing them developed bases. Burma, DEI, Pacific, East India, North Australia are all at risk of being conquered by Japan in 42

Oh, wait, Japan...
Japan has supply limitation, and construction requires supplies. So forts get priority, and other facilities - not so much. Same argument applies with trying to not give too many developed bases to the allies, but in 43-44

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 12/6/2019 4:46:45 PM >

(in reply to Cuprite)
Post #: 2
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/7/2019 11:05:06 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuprite

First campaign game newby question as Japanese player part way through Day 2 orders.
I note Kull's advice in his set-up spreadsheet suggests advancing selected port / airfield / fort facilities which are noted by base.
I note also the status quo at many more bases other than those itemised by Kull would be to continue constructing port / airfield / fort facilities?
I guess resource constraints - engineers and supply in particular, will probably dictate the trade-offs in deferring construction, but have no feel for what is viable in the context of the campaign game economy.
Should I imply the advice is to defer construction of ports / airfields / forts unless specifically noted otherwise?
Feedback appreciated, thanks


In my view, best practice is to reserve the bulk of your engineers for the "core" for much of the early game. For much of the early conquests, Japan can make do with already existing facilities, or capture them from the Allies.

Priority for building is then:

1. Development of ports to enable resource/oil/fuel imports and exports. These are key bases in the Home Islands, Korea, China and Sakhalin that start the war at a smaller size than optimal and will be used the entire war.
2. Airbases at major cities. Want these ready ASAP.
3. Airbases at hexes with static aviation support - useful for pilot training and frees up mobile aviation support units.
4. Forts at coastal hexes with open terrain.
5. Forts at coastal hexes with non-open terrain.

Outwith the core areas, I'd just make a list, organised by region, of bases you'd want developed (and to what level).

After the first six months, you should have upwards of a year to get the work done, and a handful of engineer units can do quite a lot of work if given the time to do so.

(in reply to Cuprite)
Post #: 3
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/7/2019 1:02:43 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1764
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuprite

First campaign game newby question as Japanese player part way through Day 2 orders.
I note Kull's advice in his set-up spreadsheet suggests advancing selected port / airfield / fort facilities which are noted by base.
I note also the status quo at many more bases other than those itemised by Kull would be to continue constructing port / airfield / fort facilities?
I guess resource constraints - engineers and supply in particular, will probably dictate the trade-offs in deferring construction, but have no feel for what is viable in the context of the campaign game economy.
Should I imply the advice is to defer construction of ports / airfields / forts unless specifically noted otherwise?
Feedback appreciated, thanks


I probably should have been more explicit, but from the main menu (before you even start a new scenario), there is a "Game Options" button which opens a new window. One of the toggles is "Set all facilities to expand at the start", which you want to be OFF (toggled red). It's such a universally recognized bad idea to flip that on, that it slipped my mind to say so directly.

Of course the spreadsheet implies that, by telling you which ones to turn on (which would be unnecessary if all expansions were happening by default), but yes, new players don't yet have that visceral "universal" knowledge as to which which options are a completely bad idea!

< Message edited by Kull -- 12/7/2019 4:07:55 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Cuprite)
Post #: 4
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/7/2019 2:21:17 PM   
Cuprite


Posts: 6
Joined: 6/13/2016
From: London, UK
Status: offline
many thanks

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 5
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/7/2019 2:23:46 PM   
Cuprite


Posts: 6
Joined: 6/13/2016
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Many thanks Kull,
I wouldn't even consider attempting a campaign game were it not for your Setup 101's

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 6
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/7/2019 4:12:47 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1764
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: online
Happy to help, and good luck with it. Just be aware that if this is your first campaign, you have chosen to drink from a fire hose! The learning cliff is precipitous as it is, but for the Japanese player? Yikes!

Be sure to read through Damien's "Japanese Economy" guide as it's basically mandatory.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cuprite)
Post #: 7
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 3:23:18 PM   
Cuprite


Posts: 6
Joined: 6/13/2016
From: London, UK
Status: offline
A couple of further Q's following on from the spreadsheet please;
1) A number of Air HQ's recommend increasing torpedo ordnance to 40, 60 etc. Running Version 1_7_11_24 I'm limited to 20. Is this a version issue or have I missed something ?
2) Assigning shipping orders with new Task forces the default commander selection is Off. Should this be modified to On (perhaps different answers for IJN/meranctile marine TFs ?)
many thanks again

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 8
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 3:43:42 PM   
Dutch_slith


Posts: 294
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Each click will add 20 more.

Right click it to set a toe-value.

(in reply to Cuprite)
Post #: 9
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 3:44:42 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1764
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuprite

A couple of further Q's following on from the spreadsheet please;
1) A number of Air HQ's recommend increasing torpedo ordnance to 40, 60 etc. Running Version 1_7_11_24 I'm limited to 20. Is this a version issue or have I missed something ?


It's how the system works (which is, yes, a little strange): Type in 20 (the HQ converts enough supply for 20 torps). Open the box and type 20 again, and now you have 40 total. Do it a third time and you'll have 60, etc.

quote:

2) Assigning shipping orders with new Task forces the default commander selection is Off. Should this be modified to On (perhaps different answers for IJN/meranctile marine TFs ?)
many thanks again


Not totally sure about that, but it probably means the TF is led by the commanding officer in the "lead ship" (the game determines which one), instead of pulling in a different commander. Couldn't really say which is best.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cuprite)
Post #: 10
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 3:52:00 PM   
Cuprite


Posts: 6
Joined: 6/13/2016
From: London, UK
Status: offline
I love this forum - many thanks

(in reply to Dutch_slith)
Post #: 11
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 4:42:07 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13561
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuprite

A couple of further Q's following on from the spreadsheet please;
1) A number of Air HQ's recommend increasing torpedo ordnance to 40, 60 etc. Running Version 1_7_11_24 I'm limited to 20. Is this a version issue or have I missed something ?


It's how the system works (which is, yes, a little strange): Type in 20 (the HQ converts enough supply for 20 torps). Open the box and type 20 again, and now you have 40 total. Do it a third time and you'll have 60, etc.

quote:

2) Assigning shipping orders with new Task forces the default commander selection is Off. Should this be modified to On (perhaps different answers for IJN/meranctile marine TFs ?)
many thanks again


Not totally sure about that, but it probably means the TF is led by the commanding officer in the "lead ship" (the game determines which one), instead of pulling in a different commander. Couldn't really say which is best.

The TF commander is usually captain of the ship that is:
1. Most important (e.g. CV is more important than BB)
2. Largest in tonnage
3. If there are several contenders in category 2, the last largest ship added to the TF will provide the commander. You can change the commander for free by finding the captain with the best Leadership in the TF (or best Naval Skills if you prefer) and removing his ship from the TF, then adding it back in again.

For Amphib or Transport TFs that have already begun loading troops, you cannot remove the ship to the port so you have to have another TF of the same type to move the ship to before you can move it back to the original TF.

And if it is a really important TF like your main CV force, you might want to spend PP to buy the best Admiral (with high AIR skill) you can get. If you look at the list of historic Carrier Admirals like Yamaguchi, Halsey, Spruance, and Mitscher, they all have high Air Skills.
To avoid having to pay PP again when the TF has to send ships to repair or upgrade, first bring in a sizable ship that does not need repairs and individually remove the other ships from the TF to the port. The ship you brought in will keep the Admiral on duty instead of sending him back to the pool.

< Message edited by BBfanboy -- 12/20/2019 4:43:12 PM >


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 12
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 6:37:18 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2052
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
To avoid having to pay PP again when the TF has to send ships to repair or upgrade, first bring in a sizable ship that does not need repairs and individually remove the other ships from the TF to the port. The ship you brought in will keep the Admiral on duty instead of sending him back to the pool.

I also name TFs with admirals accordingly, so that I spot them better and not accidentally disband like others. Still happens sometimes, but rarely now

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 13
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 6:59:49 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1764
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuprite

2) Assigning shipping orders with new Task forces the default commander selection is Off. Should this be modified to On (perhaps different answers for IJN/meranctile marine TFs ?)
many thanks again


To be honest, I've always ignored that button, so it seemed like something worth testing:

1) When "Auto-Select Commander:" is "Off" (always the default), the TF commander will ALWAYS be one of the ship commanders (as described by BBfanboy)

2) When "Auto-Select Commander:" is "On" (selectable), the TF commander will be chosen from the pool of Naval Commanders (not one of the ship captains). I tried a few different TFs (playing as Japan) and wound up with Rear Admirals leading Surface Combat TFs (probably good) AND Cargo TFs (really??!!)

It costs Political Points to choose TF commanders manually (while I can confirm that this option is free.....albeit you have no choice over who is chosen), so I guess there's a chance you'll wind up with somebody who is superior to the ship captain, but there's no guarantee.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cuprite)
Post #: 14
RE: Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders - 12/20/2019 7:13:09 PM   
Cuprite


Posts: 6
Joined: 6/13/2016
From: London, UK
Status: offline
Thanks all

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Japan Base Construction - Day 2 Orders Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.145