Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities

 
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 >> Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/29/2020 7:05:11 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6841
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Howdy! I asked a question previously about airplane production, and got alot of great responses, thank you gents! As a returning and rusty vet, thought I would also re-confirm my ship production priorities. As a reminder, playing DDB-C #28, so stock economy without the extra supplies in refineries.....so, IIRC, you have to be careful you don't overexpand and crash your supply stocks.

Here are some principles I am using; am I correct?

1. I am ACCELERATING all the Hiryu-clone CVs first. They are useless in 1945, need to get them to '43. They are really good value for the money....no?
2. TAIHO is next priority
3. The JUNYOS after that, though I only intermittently have enough NAV SY points, so HIYO going back and forth
4. If I can free-up NAV SY points later, the CVLs
5. I am leaving YAMATO and MUSASHI on Normal. I thought of turning off Musashi; what do you think? It's very expensive and maybe not worth it, but a) I like to fight w Yamato as a pair, and b) the Yamatos are really cool and bad-ass, so I can't resist.
6. I am keeping all DD, CLs on NORMAL build
7. I am building SSTs and Floatplane-equipped SUBS, the rest are OFF.
8. Turned off SHINANO, that's a no-brainer

Is all this about right?

On MERCHANTS, just a few questions:

1. Do I really need to build any AKs?
2. I am building AO, TKs and all the auxilleries
3. Accelerating CVEs and CS because I can
4. Building xAPs as well on normal

Seems like I could turn MERCH SY off later if I want to save some HI....


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/29/2020 10:22:50 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2295
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Great to see you back playing this game Brad!

I recall Damian and a discussion which he laid out the math on accelerating some TKs & AOs, if you get them early enough they'll pay for themselves in fuel runs.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/29/2020 11:08:35 PM   
JoV

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 2/27/2016
Status: offline
I think the hard-nosed approach is to ditch the Musashi, and perhaps even the Yamato as well. Someone did the numbers on here once (obvert maybe?) about the number of extra fighters you could build in lieu of those ships, and it is a lot!

But on the other hand, as you say, they can be fun to have around

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 3
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/29/2020 11:28:55 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6841
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
It costs 36 HI to build a fighter plane; 18 for the frame, and 18 for the engine.

A year of building Musashi is approx. 250,000 HI, or about 7,000 fighters worth

The math is pretty clear; I just hate not having that bad boy!

Another way to look at it is that, for the same price, you can move an UNRYU-class up 9 months

Building YAMATO probably makes sense because she is further along

_____________________________


(in reply to JoV)
Post #: 4
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 1:18:05 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14339
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
I pause Musashi until after Yamato is done, then I start thinking about her, but I may wait awhile, or never finish her. Building more AKs is questionable, unless his subs are super successful, you're unlikely to run out, so take it easy with them anyway. APs absolutely not. After '42 you'll be making precious few amphib landings on unfriendly shores, build some landing craft, they're always useful, but that's it. Build lots and lots of xAKLs, but pause most of them til you need them, they build fast. You'll be seeing a time when getting supplies to forward bases is hazardous to say the least, using low cost expendables carrying an expendable amount of supply makes sense. Build all the TKs and AOs you can. Build or convert to PBs early on, you'll need a bunch, but once you're getting your Es start converting them to AMcs and ACMs or other things. The 6k range PBs can't be converted but they'll be useful to the end.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 7/20 it is 12/44.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 5
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 1:22:59 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14339
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
One thing, like with LCUs turn off upgrades on absolutely everything. Turn them back on selectively when it is convenient to you. Go ahead and miss some upgrades if you need to. Check on how much AA you get from an upgrade to help prioritize them, some ships get very little while others get a lot more than a lot.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 7/20 it is 12/44.

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 6
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 1:32:09 AM   
jdsrae


Posts: 1363
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: The Land Downunder
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

On MERCHANTS, just a few questions:


1. Do I really need to build any AKs?

For xAK it depends a lot on how many you convert to Auxiliaries and how many you keep for resource hauling.
Gaze into your crystal ball, then answer these questions:
a. How many xAK will you lose to allied interference?
b. At what date do you think the allies will start closing your resource convoy routes?

I halt any further “junk” xAK/xAKL construction.
The later the decent xAK arrive the least useful they will be, so perhaps halt all 1944+ production as a start.

Note that the Std-A/B/C xAK can convert to TK and they start arriving well before the TK reinforcements of the same class.

2. I am building AO, TKs and all the auxilleries

Same questions to ask the crystal ball as for xAK.
The later the AO/TK arrives it might be too late to do anything but get sunk and give cheap victory points to the allies.

3. Accelerating CVEs and CS because I can

Extra cost for what benefit? I feel that anything that arrives in 1942 at normal build rate isn’t worth accelerating.
What will the late war Army CVEs be good for, other than getting sunk?

4. Building xAPs as well on normal

Same questions as above, do you think you will need more of these in 1944+?

Seems like I could turn MERCH SY off later if I want to save some HI....

Definitely, some time in 1944 depending on your choices above, merchant shipyards can start going into mothballs otherwise you will just waste HI points producing MSY points that you’ll never use.


< Message edited by jdsrae -- 1/30/2020 1:38:55 AM >


_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no CrackSabbath): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 7
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 1:42:20 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14339
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
I don't pay any attention to VPs, I know when things are going well or not without some arbitrary bs points being given by a brainless system. For instance, if you abandon those remote bases in Thailand after the Thai Army evaporates, you get charged VPs. Whatever for? There's absolutely nothing out there. The Allies will only go there if they get lost somehow.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 7/20 it is 12/44.

(in reply to jdsrae)
Post #: 8
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 1:45:33 AM   
jdsrae


Posts: 1363
Joined: 3/1/2010
From: The Land Downunder
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

A year of building Musashi is approx. 250,000 HI, or about 7,000 fighters worth.


Its just that training the extra 5000+ fighter pilots per year to have decent pilots to fly them isn’t so easy.

_____________________________

Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no CrackSabbath): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 9
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 9:55:36 AM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
I recall I gave the numbers quite precisely some time ago for most of the ships tradeoffs.


What I do:

- Stop Yamato and Musashi. I never build them.
- Accelerate the first 2 CVs (Hiyo and the other one)
- Accelerate the CVEs.
- Stop CLs.
- Accelerate AOs and some tankers. I tend to accelerate ALL the AOs and TKs which come online before Sept-43. You can easily skip (not produce) the smaller TKs, to be honest.
- Stop all xAK and xAKL.
- Leave SS, E and DDs in "normal" and then put every single point in accelerating the CVs.
- Stop Shinano.


Here there are basically three variables:
A) Increase or not the NavShipyards. With the starting ones, you are tight but they're definitely more than enough to have everything you need produced.
B) Strategy focused on forcing an early decisve carrier battle: in this case it is worth to accelerate the CVs coming online first (such as the Tahio) instead of the late ones.
C) Strategy focused on sheer numbers for a decisve carrier battle in '44: in this case it's much better to accelerate the late CVs so that you have all your carriers available when you have the decisive fight.


In line of principle, CVs are the pivotal element of your decision about shipbuilding. Once you have decided how much you want / can afford in terms of CVs, you can decide the rest.
Also, I tend to lose many DDs in the opening months, so I am usually in need of having more of them.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to jdsrae)
Post #: 10
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 10:13:15 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2279
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
1. Do I really need to build any AKs?
2. I am building AO, TKs and all the auxilleries

1. Certainly stop the majority of xAKs. I would build only the few that can convert to AK, and also the Std-A (and maybe B) to convert them to TK. Built ships will almost certainly turn out as allied VPs later and you might not want that :)
2. Accelerating some AO/TKs is ok. You need all that you can get to make use of them during the the relatively safe 42/43.
I don't remember if Super-Es are in the merchant class WRT building. If they are, it makes sense to accelerate those to boost your ASW earlier


< Message edited by GetAssista -- 1/30/2020 10:16:01 AM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 11
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 3:34:59 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Howdy! I asked a question previously about airplane production, and got alot of great responses, thank you gents! As a returning and rusty vet, thought I would also re-confirm my ship production priorities. As a reminder, playing DDB-C #28, so stock economy without the extra supplies in refineries.....so, IIRC, you have to be careful you don't overexpand and crash your supply stocks.

Here are some principles I am using; am I correct?

1. I am ACCELERATING all the Hiryu-clone CVs first. They are useless in 1945, need to get them to '43. They are really good value for the money....no?
2. TAIHO is next priority
3. The JUNYOS after that, though I only intermittently have enough NAV SY points, so HIYO going back and forth
4. If I can free-up NAV SY points later, the CVLs
5. I am leaving YAMATO and MUSASHI on Normal. I thought of turning off Musashi; what do you think? It's very expensive and maybe not worth it, but a) I like to fight w Yamato as a pair, and b) the Yamatos are really cool and bad-ass, so I can't resist.
6. I am keeping all DD, CLs on NORMAL build
7. I am building SSTs and Floatplane-equipped SUBS, the rest are OFF.
8. Turned off SHINANO, that's a no-brainer



My comments are relegated to 'stock' Scenario 2, wherein the Shinano is a Taiho-class CV.

Accelerate those Unryu class CVs that can be brought forward into 1943. This will preclude the advancing of the last two in the queue I believe. Stop production of CVEs similarly due in 1945. Those are inherently worthless by that stage of the game and certainly not worth the MER SY points used on them.

In conjunction with judicious conversion / upgrade of your CSs (Chitose, Chiyoda, etc.), the pulling forward of the two Taihos, acceleration of the applicable Unryus, normal building of your Hiyos and, of course, starting fleet CV/CVLs, you should be able to field >16 CV/CVLs by the end of 1943. You should have radar, upgraded AAA and advanced airframes on these ships by that time, so they can be a very powerful force if shepherded for this purpose.

I build both Yamato and Mushashi per normal to get them out of the queue if nothing else.

I tend to turn off late-war SST and RO-class SS boats. I also turn off subs due in late 1944-1945, regardless of type. Those NAV SY points are better spent elsewhere in the earlier war years. If I lose a sub due to enemy action, I will sometimes re-start submarines that are due 1944 to make up for the loss.

quote:


On MERCHANTS, just a few questions:

1. Do I really need to build any AKs?
2. I am building AO, TKs and all the auxilleries
3. Accelerating CVEs and CS because I can
4. Building xAPs as well on normal

Seems like I could turn MERCH SY off later if I want to save some HI....



Build auxiliaries, TKs and AOs. Build those xAKs that can convert to TK-there are a fair number of these. Otherwise, we're in the same ballpark.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 1/30/2020 3:39:35 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 12
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 4:20:37 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
This is the CV/CVL/CVE setup I have calculated.

The "Expected arrival" refers to the date in which the ship should be available net of acceleration.
The "incremental a/c" column refers to the total amount of embarked a/c available.

Please note that I did this spreadsheet for a very twisted game in which I am running 1,700NavShipyards. In a normal game, you will have to go much much lighter. This is Scen1, with all the consequences of that.


Also, I forgot to mention before that, yes, I'd produce some Std- merchant ships. Not many, though, since tankers are useful but with a careful use and a strong ASW setup you shouldn't lose too many of them.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 13
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 4:23:36 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
This is the list of USN CVs arriving within the same timeframe as the Jap CVs listed above.

Don't remember why I included the CVL Hermes and not the British CVs, though.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 14
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 6:01:50 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Don't remember why I included the CVL Hermes and not the British CVs, though.



You're counting the contributions of CVE/POS Hosho, but not the myriad CVEs that the Allies get through the end of 1943 too. That's an unequal/incomplete comparison.

_____________________________


(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 15
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 6:30:31 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
You're right, I should have stated that it doesn't include all the CVEs arriving before '44 to the allied side.

It's a grand total of 22 CVEs for 575 embarked a/c until the end of 1943.


I did the above tables taking into consideration the balance for a defensive maneuvre battle, in which I am likely to bring into action my full firepower, while the allies are unlikely to bring CVEs as well.

It has been done more to represent the not so huge delta between allies and Japan even into '44 when we take into consideration sheer numbers only.

To be fair, I don't find it changes much. Especially if you consider that in 1942 you get "only" 8 CVEs with 221 embarked a/c.
The big change happens after mid-43 and, even more, after mid-44


And... Hosho is amazing! It has 25knts of top speed: enough to stay with KB2!


PS. Please, take also into consideration that in my last PBEMs I have played with the HR of "max 500 embarked a/c per-hex" and therefore the carrier clashes have been way more complex and on a much larger geographical scale than usual.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 16
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 8:36:57 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

You're right, I should have stated that it doesn't include all the CVEs arriving before '44 to the allied side.

It's a grand total of 22 CVEs for 575 embarked a/c until the end of 1943.


I did the above tables taking into consideration the balance for a defensive maneuvre battle, in which I am likely to bring into action my full firepower, while the allies are unlikely to bring CVEs as well.



Well, if your goal was to calculate CVEs available for a Japanese defensive battle, why didn't you include the other (other than Hosho) Japanese CVEs available prior to then end of 1943?

_____________________________


(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 17
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 10:06:20 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
For the reason stated above: the Hosho can go at 25knts and thus being able to stick together with the 2KB. While other CVEs are slower and I use them mainly for convoy escort duties and/or minor raids in non-contested waters.

It's highly unlikely I have them available in a carrier clash due to the fact they are slow and scattered around the map.


Also, not a secondary factor, they have quite specialised groups in my games. You don't want weak CVEs with ASW-focused groups entangled in a decisive carrier clash.

Basically, I exclude them from the embarked a/c count because it's highly improbable they will be able to join whatever carrier clash: counting on them would be relying on a force that it's likely to be dozens of hexes away from the show.

Hope I have clarified my thought about the above schemes I did for my games.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 18
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/30/2020 11:02:44 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Japan rarely runs out of HI.

What kills the economy is a lack of fuel and supply. Seeing as you're likely to have the spare HI, may as well invest it - you can always park the ships somewhere safe till they are needed.

quote:

1. I am ACCELERATING all the Hiryu-clone CVs first. They are useless in 1945, need to get them to '43. They are really good value for the money....no?
2. TAIHO is next priority
3. The JUNYOS after that, though I only intermittently have enough NAV SY points, so HIYO going back and forth
4. If I can free-up NAV SY points later, the CVLs
5. I am leaving YAMATO and MUSASHI on Normal. I thought of turning off Musashi; what do you think? It's very expensive and maybe not worth it, but a) I like to fight w Yamato as a pair, and b) the Yamatos are really cool and bad-ass, so I can't resist.
6. I am keeping all DD, CLs on NORMAL build
7. I am building SSTs and Floatplane-equipped SUBS, the rest are OFF.
8. Turned off SHINANO, that's a no-brainer


1-4. I'm not very sold on much accelerating at all. Far better to simply plan operations around the expected arrival dates. You know what the Allies are getting, and when (+/- 60 days). Easy enough to map when you can be aggressive and when you should be cautious.

5. Both Yamato's are great damage sponges in CV fights. They can and do lap up 1000lber hits that may otherwise hit carriers.

6. Makes sense. There may be merit in accelerating the early Akizuki's for KB escort to free the Kagero's up for surface combat (superior AA characteristics of the 10cm versus 12.7cm), but I'm not all that convinced.

7. SST are a waste. Floatplane subs are marginally useful by the time they arrive. I'd rather the points on something else.

8. A CV is a CV, expensive or not.

For merchants, my view would be yes. You'll never use them for cargo, but you will need them as naval "chaff" to throw at Allied landings in the late war.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 19
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/31/2020 12:10:49 AM   
offenseman


Posts: 733
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: online
I like to accelerate the Escort classes but only after they are build eligible and before they actually start construction. Lots of accel for little HI cost. Using them to heavily escort TKs help vs the subs at the sooner the better.

_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 20
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/31/2020 12:36:44 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6841
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Great comments, and love the chart! Thanks gents!

HOSHO isn't that terrible, IMO; terrible hull, but it can make 25 knots and carry 20 planes, so good enough to run with the JUNYOS. I think you treat it like a front-line carrier.

_____________________________


(in reply to offenseman)
Post #: 21
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/31/2020 2:00:06 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13121
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdsrae


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

A year of building Musashi is approx. 250,000 HI, or about 7,000 fighters worth.


Its just that training the extra 5000+ fighter pilots per year to have decent pilots to fly them isn’t so easy.


training them would be one thing but you don't even get that many replacement pilots

_____________________________


(in reply to jdsrae)
Post #: 22
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/31/2020 2:19:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

You're right, I should have stated that it doesn't include all the CVEs arriving before '44 to the allied side.

It's a grand total of 22 CVEs for 575 embarked a/c until the end of 1943.


I did the above tables taking into consideration the balance for a defensive maneuvre battle, in which I am likely to bring into action my full firepower, while the allies are unlikely to bring CVEs as well.

It has been done more to represent the not so huge delta between allies and Japan even into '44 when we take into consideration sheer numbers only.

To be fair, I don't find it changes much. Especially if you consider that in 1942 you get "only" 8 CVEs with 221 embarked a/c.
The big change happens after mid-43 and, even more, after mid-44


And... Hosho is amazing! It has 25knts of top speed: enough to stay with KB2!


PS. Please, take also into consideration that in my last PBEMs I have played with the HR of "max 500 embarked a/c per-hex" and therefore the carrier clashes have been way more complex and on a much larger geographical scale than usual.


Have often thought of a HR like this one. How has it worked for you?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 23
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 1/31/2020 11:35:35 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
PS. Please, take also into consideration that in my last PBEMs I have played with the HR of "max 500 embarked a/c per-hex" and therefore the carrier clashes have been way more complex and on a much larger geographical scale than usual.


Ah. I see. Nah. That sort of HR-intended to hobble Allied 'Death Star' formations in the game is not for me. My comments regarding ship building and carrier warfare in the game was without that atypical and hobbling HR. YMMV.

_____________________________


(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 24
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 2/1/2020 1:41:17 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 6768
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
PS. Please, take also into consideration that in my last PBEMs I have played with the HR of "max 500 embarked a/c per-hex" and therefore the carrier clashes have been way more complex and on a much larger geographical scale than usual.


Ah. I see. Nah. That sort of HR-intended to hobble Allied 'Death Star' formations in the game is not for me. My comments regarding ship building and carrier warfare in the game was without that atypical and hobbling HR. YMMV.


Just put some minefields in the open ocean in front of the DS. Once one task force hits a minefield, the rest should avoid that hex. That breaks up the DS.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

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

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 25
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 2/1/2020 10:28:02 AM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

You're right, I should have stated that it doesn't include all the CVEs arriving before '44 to the allied side.

It's a grand total of 22 CVEs for 575 embarked a/c until the end of 1943.


I did the above tables taking into consideration the balance for a defensive maneuvre battle, in which I am likely to bring into action my full firepower, while the allies are unlikely to bring CVEs as well.

It has been done more to represent the not so huge delta between allies and Japan even into '44 when we take into consideration sheer numbers only.

To be fair, I don't find it changes much. Especially if you consider that in 1942 you get "only" 8 CVEs with 221 embarked a/c.
The big change happens after mid-43 and, even more, after mid-44


And... Hosho is amazing! It has 25knts of top speed: enough to stay with KB2!


PS. Please, take also into consideration that in my last PBEMs I have played with the HR of "max 500 embarked a/c per-hex" and therefore the carrier clashes have been way more complex and on a much larger geographical scale than usual.


Have often thought of a HR like this one. How has it worked for you?





I would say that until 1944 it works very well. After 1944 kicks in, I suggest increasing to max 700 embarked a/c per-hex.


It's obviously a pro-jap HR, but not as much as it might seem: indeed, an Allied player who is able to adapt to that can have very good results.

It requires a major switch in Allies' mentality from "making the big blob" to "manoeuvre battle".
In line of principle, I have seen that the HR doesn't change much unless the Allied player sticks with the idea of just putting every single ship he has in one hex. In that case, he's quite f@cked up.

In general, this HR produces much more complex battles in a much wider scope than usual. Engagements are quite brutal and die rolls play a big role. Basically, positioning is very important and battles are fought no longer in one hex vs one hex, but rather in "areas".

For example: an Allied approach to Mariannas has been done through several minor preparatory operations and then a sort of "sweep" embracing the whole area, instead of the usual "big fleet crawling to the landing point under 1,000,000 fighter cover".
Also, carrier clashes are more frequent but less decisive unless it's a major operation (such as the Mariannas mentioned above). If it's a major operations, they become really really bloody.


I find the HR quite interesting because it pushes away the general principle of "1,000 ships in one hex with billions of a/c in CAP", rewarding a more dynamic gameplay for both.
Also, take into consideration that Jap AirTFs are under the same limitation and, ceteribus paribus, they are weaker: a/c are generally worse, CVs themselves are squishy and AAA isn't great either. So, the game becomes much more complex for the Japanese player as well.



I'd say that the game is much much more dynamic and complex with this HR, carrier battles are a matter of positioning more than anything else and that an allied player who is able to grasp the consequences of the HR and leverage them is in advantage, otherwise the Japanese player has a net gain.


NOTE: I do play both sides and I propose this HR also when I'm the evil Allies. So, I have a grasp of it from the other side of the barricade as well, even though I haven't gone far enough in the game with the Allies to have a definitive opinion on the topic.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 26
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 2/1/2020 10:39:19 AM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
PS. Please, take also into consideration that in my last PBEMs I have played with the HR of "max 500 embarked a/c per-hex" and therefore the carrier clashes have been way more complex and on a much larger geographical scale than usual.


Ah. I see. Nah. That sort of HR-intended to hobble Allied 'Death Star' formations in the game is not for me. My comments regarding ship building and carrier warfare in the game was without that atypical and hobbling HR. YMMV.




Allied DS doesn't include, from my perspective, CVEs. Meaning that it's quite unlikely that you have CVEs mixed with DS in operations other than big landings.

I haven't included them because of that. The mentioned HR just changes the situation for landings, where CVEs and DS aren't mixed as it usually is.



The logic of my scheme is quite simple: to get an idea of the relative balance of numbers and power all along the 1942/1943. It's not intended to show anything else than that. Sheer numbers only.

If it would have been intended for a more complex analysis I would have had to put a rough estimation of pilots quality and plane quality, in addition, of course, to the relative quality of the mentioned ships.



It's incidental that I made it for games in which I have that HR.



To be honest, I don't see how an allied player, a part from landings, can be interested in using ALL his flat-tops in a single hex during relatively deep sorties. Also, even if he does that, I can refuse the engagement. Unless he does that constantly, and that's, at least, weird, I should be able to spot a moment in which I can engage his DS without CVEs.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 27
RE: Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities - 2/1/2020 3:57:58 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6188
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: online
quote:

8. A CV is a CV, expensive or not.




Just a bit more...

I turn off both Yamato BB's at start. Will complete them a bit later. This allows me to accelerate those 6 '61' build rate CV for what is essentially nothing. Its '61 x 2', but since you get them a day early for each 61 nsy points you spend you 'get your money' back, so to speak.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Japanese Shipbuilding Priorities 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

0.211