IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question

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 >> IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/28/2014 12:50:53 PM

Tokyo Boy

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/28/2014
Status: offline

Hello everyone,

I previously played 4 years at HOI and I would like to know if my view and tactics can have an interest in my game on WITP AE ?

In 1942 a large part of the IJN warships are already old so clearly outdated when US new units comes in the pacific.
BB is in constant danger of US CV and most of them are to slow to pursue US task force. So they are limited to bombing role .
New gun monster as Yamato comes too late to play its offensive role and it is just a question of time to reach the sea bottom with the others
Fuel are very lmited and support the whole fleet waist it quickly without a good result

so i used to disband a lot of units at the beginning to
reduce my supply need
reduce my fuel need
to create space in my habours

stop to produce CA and BB to produce fast CL with good AA capacity, Good DD and some extra carriers

In WITP AE how to easily choose what I will use. How to know what kind of DD can deal with a tambor class us sub or what kind of CL has enough AA to have a small chance against us air raid ?
is there a benefit of withdraw unit for japanese player ? if i stop expanding japan fleet may i relocate the Hi to produce more fighters.

I m really start in witp so sorry if it s really a too simple view

< Message edited by Tokyo Boy -- 5/28/2014 3:06:26 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/28/2014 3:32:33 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tokyo Boy

Hello everyone,

I previously played 4 years at HOI and I would like to know if my view and tactics can have an interest in my game on WITP AE ?

In 1942 a large part of the IJN warships are already old so clearly outdated when US new units comes in the pacific.
BB is in constant danger of US CV and most of them are to slow to pursue US task force. So they are limited to bombing role .
New gun monster as Yamato comes too late to play its offensive role and it is just a question of time to reach the sea bottom with the others
Fuel are very lmited and support the whole fleet waist it quickly without a good result

so i used to disband a lot of units at the beginning to
reduce my supply need
reduce my fuel need
to create space in my habours

stop to produce CA and BB to produce fast CL with good AA capacity, Good DD and some extra carriers

In WITP AE how to easily choose what I will use. How to know what kind of DD can deal with a tambor class us sub or what kind of CL has enough AA to have a small chance against us air raid ?
is there a benefit of withdraw unit for japanese player ? if i stop expanding japan fleet may i relocate the Hi to produce more fighters.

I m really start in witp so sorry if it s really a too simple view

Compared to HOI3, even its mods, oil and fuel are MUCH more limited and a great deal of the game is about logistics and for Japan also on war economy and not the least in getting resources and the pumped oil safely first turned into fuel and then moved to factories to be turned into supplies and HI points.

That said both naval and air combat are much more lethal than in HOIs and "dated" ships are more useful. Mistake or bad luck in naval war can end up in lots of unreplaceable ships, troops or even aircrew lost for good. BB may be a thing of the past times by 1942 but not because they are not effective, but because of the questionable utility compared to building, maintenance and running costs as well as logistical needs. They may be vulnerable to torpedo but even the worst BBs make excellent heavily armored floating gun batteries, often for supporting an invasion.

Japan's BBs may be mostly old but remember that the US or RN ones arent any newer. Ise, Fuso, Yamashiro and Hyuga can still be useful or even very powerful in the right role, Nagato and Mutsu have heavy guns and the 4 Kongo class have the best fuel efficiency, and are very fast. As long as you dont drive them constantly in submarine infested waters or through minefields, they arent even very vulnerable, not even to aircraft. USN torpedoes have horrific dud rates early on(50% for air-dropped and 80% for most sub torps) and all the IJN BBs are more or less immune to dive bombers. They can at times shugger off even a dozen hits with just some SYS damage, that can get repaired in days at best.

For Japan BBs have best AA guns, the 25 mm guns arent very lethal(short range, stupid magazine-fed weapon). Instead of looking at ship classification you should go through them class by class, because the difference within a class can be huge. A typical IJN CL is nothing like a USN one. Only IJN CL with even remotely useful anti-aircraft guns(for supporting bigger ships) is the CLAA conversion for the 2 Tenryus. Compared to HOI3 again, aircraft are MUCH more deadly and no sane commander would ever put ships in harms way just to get a shot at aircraft with AA guns(well maybe Allies in mid 1945 when theres a thousand or so of DDs to spare

).

There is no benefit in intentionally sinking your ships or having your planes shot down unless you count increased difficulty as one. Dont throw away your precious assets! However you may want to decide to not build or finish some future ships such as BB Musashi or late war submarines. In expanding the air force as well as there is a limited number of air groups, (trained) aircrew , airfields, aviation support personnel and so forth.

Feel free to ask more!

< Message edited by Erkki -- 5/28/2014 4:33:14 PM >

(in reply to Tokyo Boy)

Post #: 2

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/28/2014 4:54:06 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

You are not playing HOI; here other than creating a new scenario, you cannot change your fleet reinforcements; you can surely accelerate or halt new ships (example: halt Musashi, accelerate Taiyo), but the numbers and quality of your reinforcements are all fixed.

Your navy is top notch in 42' do not throw it away; let the Allies do it for you in 43' and 44'

Edit: by the way, in the regular scenario, you don't have any CA on queue

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 5/28/2014 5:55:59 PM >

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 3

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/28/2014 9:01:08 PM

Tokyo Boy

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/28/2014
Status: offline

Thanks for this clear explanation of japan fleet potential. So the dud torpedo time is the happy time for the japanese and i have to get the best results in this period . Otherwise simply use the unit that i consider too weak on more safety area

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 4

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/28/2014 9:37:18 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Japanese BBs at start are faster than all US BBs, but they are not fast enough to operate with the carriers except for the Kongos. The US fast BBs that show up in 1942 will change that balance somewhat.

The Japanese in the real war kept most of their older BBs in Singapore or the DEI because they did consume a lot of fuel and keeping them near the source was better than have them run around the empire. They held them back for the "decisive battle" which in reality was the carrier battle as Midway. They were hoping the old leviathans could turn the tide somewhere.

They crafted three scenarios in which the BBs would be employed: invasion of Formosa, the invasion of the Philippines, or the invasion of Iwo Jima. The invasion that triggered the scenario was the invasion of Leyte in the Philippines.

In the original plan, the carriers were supposed to come down from Japan and the BBs up from the SRA and catch the US forces in between. The carrier air groups had been nearly wiped out at the Battle of the Philippine Sea a few months before and they were feverishly training new air groups. The plan to defend Formosa got prematurely triggered when Halsey conducted a raid there in early October. The new air groups from the carriers were rushed to Formosa thinking the invasion was on.

In a several day air battle Halsey destroyed most of the half trained air groups for the carriers leaving Japan with only around 100 carrier trained pilots. When the invasion of the Philippines happened a few weeks later, the carriers could only be used as bait and conduct some small harassing attacks on the US fleet. The BBs were left to do most of the job themselves with pretty poor results overall.

Anyway, Japanese BBs are good for invasion support (even though they were not generally used in this role in the real war) and bombardment (only done at Guadalcanal in the real war). They also exist as a force in being to keep the Allies from doing anything too bold. A strong force held in reserve can do a lot of damage to an operation the Allies attempt on a shoe string.

If you play the AI, you will probably get an opportunity to use them that way. A human player probably won't make such mistakes.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Tokyo Boy)

Post #: 5

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/28/2014 9:53:32 PM

Jorge_Stanbury

Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline

Scenario 1 is as realistic as it gets. But if you want a more balanced game; there are other scenarios that have interesting "what ifs". They range from the very plausible to those that try to balance the war by giving Japan more tonnage than its economy could support

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 6

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/30/2014 1:52:05 PM

Tokyo Boy

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/28/2014
Status: offline

Thanks for these explanations

Anyway, Japanese BBs are good for invasion support (even though they were not generally used in this role in the real war)

At the battle of Midway ,I heard that jap BB were not very far away but with the lost of their CV they cannot go ahead to bomb Midway

< Message edited by Tokyo Boy -- 5/30/2014 2:53:34 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)

Post #: 7

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/30/2014 10:31:22 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

The Japanese BBs at Midway were there to counter the US surface forces if they turned out. US TF 1 with the remaining operational old BBs was at sea about halfway between Midway and San Francisco. They were standing by in case there was some undefined situation where they could do any good.

I have never read that the IJN had any intention of dedicating BBs to bombardment and I don't believe they carried the HE rounds to do so. The shore bombardment mission for BBs is something nobody really thought of until the Japanese did it at Guadalcanal. Up until that point BBs were considered too important (and high status) to risk close in to shore on bombardment missions.

After the Japanese used the Kongos for bombardment it gave the USN old BBs a mission. The USN old BB crews got retrained for shore bombardment and got quite good at it. On a few occasions the fast BBs were used for shore bombardment, but the results were usually quite poor compared to the older BBs.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Tokyo Boy)

Post #: 8

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 5/31/2014 2:26:16 PM

Tokyo Boy

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/28/2014
Status: offline

In fact i didn t read that too but i read somewhere that the BB TF s name was bombing fleet , so i supposed that means bombing midway
but it must be a translation mistake

< Message edited by Tokyo Boy -- 5/31/2014 3:27:25 PM >

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 9

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 6/4/2014 4:26:39 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

The great thing about WiTP is that not every game is the same and there is no one answer to how to handle your production, including capital ship production, and the use of your naval assets. I certainly think that, in many cases, it is wise to halt production on the Yamata class ships, at first, until you see how the war is progressing. If you are losing some capital ships but quickly getting access to fuel and resources for production, you probably would want to go ahead and resume work on the later war capital ships, including the 2 big BBs.

As to using the BBs, I typically use 1 Congo class BB with each carrier group. It is expensive on the fuel, but they tend to soak up a few attacks that would otherwise go against the carriers and they do throw out a good deal of AA. The other BBs work nicely in the first few months supporting invasions. As another commenter pointed out, later in the war, you have to pick your spots with them, and they may not have an opportunity to really do much against the main thrust of the U.S. attack. If you have the fuel to spare, however, you usually can find some spots with them to hit the allies in a weak point or two: at the very least, that they exist is a threat that forces the allied player to proceed more cautiously and slowly than he might otherwise. The Japanese CLs are very valuable early in the war as you are expanding, leading amphibious task forces and mopping up fleeing allied ships from the Dutch islands. Later in the war, however, as another commenter pointed out, they are very limited in what they can do: moreso than the BBs. A lot of your late-war decisions will probably involve deciding how best to allocate your fuel: to production or fleet movement. Having a ready supply of capital ships available gives you additional options, even if you eventually decide it best to focus on producing aircraft and munitions rather than moving fleets.

(in reply to Tokyo Boy)

Post #: 10

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 6/6/2014 1:00:15 AM

Tokyo Boy

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/28/2014
Status: offline

Good tips Aurorus. Thanks

I keep them in my mind.

Well I found a way to apply in WITP AE my HOI's EMP. (Evil Master Plan)
Tell you more in my future AAR

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 11

RE: IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question - 6/12/2014 9:01:27 AM

pharmy

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline

Bill

quote:

I have never read that the IJN had any intention of dedicating BBs to bombardment and I don't believe they carried the HE rounds to do so. The shore bombardment mission for BBs is something nobody really thought of until the Japanese did it at Guadalcanal. Up until that point BBs were considered too important (and high status) to risk close in to shore on bombardment missions.

Yeah strangely they had the Kongo and Hiei with their Midway support group but only the 4 accompanying heavy cruisers were tasked with bombarding the atoll

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 12

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> IJN What we really need ? Jap withdraw question

Page: [1]