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

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

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Alpha77 -> Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 2:42:59 PM)
Not so good IJ combat ships: From my "AAR" after I lost some bigger ships I decided to analyze them and judge which could be risked or safeguared for later useage, link: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4175198&mpage=2&key= Decided to post in main forum, almost no one reads this "AAR" ok, it is probably not as good an AAR like most others[;)] - AV Akitsushima - FUEL! - DD classes Akitsuki, Shimakaze - FUEL, also the 10cm guns of A. are not so good in Surface combat, only 2 DCs at beginnig get more DCs later - CS Chitose, Mizuho - FUEL - CL Sendai+Kuma - weak armor, 14cm guns get downgraded with updates, also a bit FUEL warning - CL Yubari, short range, weak armor+armament also FUEL - CL Kitakami - only good in torpedoes (if they would hit), only very late better update, will Kaitens and a bit more AA still matter in 44 ? Also FUEL! - CV Akagi,Kaga - highest FUEL warning from all IJ CVs - BB Yamato, highest FUEL warning from all IJ BBs guns may take long too reload needs bigger ports and much nav support - CA 4 x the oldest ones (Furutaka etc): These are suprising fuel efficent, but lack armor and guns and AA. The next update they get is early 44 (will that still matter then?) - BB (or better BC) Kongo, only 8x36cm guns, weak armor, better speed, but also high fuel usage - BB all others, better than above, better armor and more guns, but slower also not so high fuel useage as Kongo,Yamato, so the best SF combatants in the IJ fleets, except CAs classes like Mogami, Takao and DDs like Yugumo, Kagero classes. These 2 DDs are the best overall ships in my opinion. Even the CAs like Takao could be better in the armor and AA departement. If you want also smaller ships in the list, than all PBs and most SCs would also belong there (all with type 95 DCs and short range the ones with 1000 range especially, I never had them attack a sub at all so far, yes if they are shot on by the sub before they try to drop some DCs which will not hit or not reach the depth of the Allied subs, but they could be useful as targets) What do you think? Ofc, the Allies will not care much about the "fuel" aspect, the IJ should take it into account

SheperdN7 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 2:57:52 PM)
I would add in the Katori class CL's, poor main armament and no long lance. BLAH.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 3:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SheperdN7 I would add in the Katori class CL's, poor main armament and no long lance. BLAH. Will be good escorts later (if they live that long, some suggest keep them safe in Japan proper [:'(]) For the same reason I did not include the older DDs they will be ok escorts later! Sadly I only lost only one of the bad ships "Kongo" - the othesr that were sunk by cunning Allies are 2 x good BBs and 2 x good CAs and 1 x ok CV and 2 ok CVL. Strange I planned to risk the "worse" ships more esp. the CLs but only 1 CL lost [>:]

BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 3:25:41 PM)
What - you want all your ships to be super-ships with perfect balance of strong features? It doesn't happen - ever! Even the magnificent Kagero class has weaknesses in AA and ASW. But the Allies have the same problems, plus lower experienced crews and less effective torpedoes. The game is mostly about logistics - which in turn is about getting stuff to the units that need it before they need it. So if fuel range is an issue you need to make frequent port stops, or place AOs near your combat ships, or accept that the short-ranged ships must operate near enough to your bases. E.G. warships that are weak in AAA armament must not approach strong enemy bomber bases in daylight. Careful choice of the ships for each mission vs the conditions you expect is a must. At some point you will have a tough choice - send ships that are not adequate to the mission or keep them safe and scrub the mission. It depends which is more valuable to your overall strategy at the time. The other thing about the battle you fought is that you did not seem to be aware of the two huge enemy cruiser TFs until the battle. Recon and search are essential elements to supporting your fleet so you know what they might face and can decide whether to send them in or not. Canoerebel said it best - "Knowledge of the enemy is the most important thing in the game".

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 3:33:08 PM)
BB, I agree you cannot get a super ship, however the Allies get pretty close to that with Iowa, Essex, some later CAs/CLs and Fletcher... Btw, the FUEL aspect is an overall aspect, the IJ has only a limited amount of fuel to use. Bringing fuel to the front to operate short range ships is NOT the problem, the problem is every liter of fuel burnt by ships will not feed the economy. Allies do not need to care for this aspect. This is why (imho) IJ players need to think what ships to move and how far. Mind you this is my OPIONION others may just disregard that aspect and/or plan to play until end of 43 then there will be no fuel shortage, it will rear its ugly head in late 44/45 depending how much one builds up his HI and spends for planes, veh,arm, nav points etc. Re, the battle, the Allied in my game had lost some bigger ships before, I underestiminated his resolve to risk assets (in this case good combat ships) and did not think the bombardement mission would be opposed so strongly. As I believed he was fed up with ship losses and will keep them safe for a while until he gets more. I was wrong, as also can be seen now in the air war, he can throw 100s of fighters at me in the south and India in sweeps even if he lost a good number before in these areas. He only seems now to be more careful with his 4Es otherwise he throws what he has it seems. I was confused by Allied aar which say they should safe assets for later and that I played only vs. the AI before (which is really different to PBM) [;)] A mission I did was raiding, which was pretty useless, the Allies lost 12-15 cargo ships, 2-3 AMs and perhaps some supply,fuel or troop fragments loaded on these ships. Also a small British CV was hit by a torp and 2-3 bombs, probably not sunk. I lost a CV (to fires) and burned lots of fuel, was it worth it ?

BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 3:45:15 PM)
I confess I have never played as Japan for more than a few turns (the whole economy thing is not what I want to do in a war game) but I did get the impression that Japan should reinforce its strong central position and not expand too far. Most players seem to say it is better to expand and make speed bumps for the Allied return, but I am not convinced. Every unit lost or bypassed on those outposts could have fought better on an island closer to Japan with more troops, lots of supply and high forts. And closer means less fuel used to reach the base. E.G. Instead of putting troops into the Aleutians (many IJ player take as far as Adak), I would reinforce the Kuriles strongly and provide good recon and sub patrols toward Alaska and Midway to see what the Allies are up to.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 3:49:41 PM)
BB I agree again, I did not go that far in this game (but also to the Allied were pretty quick to put much stuff at eg.Luganville, Suva etc.), I also ignore the Aleutians ( I even lost them as IJ vs. the AI LOL) instead build up Kuriles, Hokaido etc. But it is good that many IJ players do take more risks land at PH, Australia, Ceylon etc. otherwise it would be boring right? A bit OT and I believe this strategy topic was discussed a lot before - I would advocate for small outposts in Allied waters to have "a look", but knowing I will lose everything I put there eventually) OT off.

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 4:18:36 PM)
How dare you besmirch the Kongo.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 4:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna How dare you besmirch the Kongo. [image]http://www.ivory-tours.de/sites/default/files/field/picturegallery/image//flussfahrt-regenwald-kongo-afrika.jpg[/image] I am not looks nice landscape there[:'(]

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 4:53:04 PM)
In all seriousness, the 36cm guns on the Kongo are perfectly adequate. Would 41cm be better? Sure. But 36cm will penetrate the North Carolina class armor. Also, the Kongos have the best fuel per hex usage of the IJN BBs, do they not?

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 5:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna In all seriousness, the 36cm guns on the Kongo are perfectly adequate. Would 41cm be better? Sure. But 36cm will penetrate the North Carolina class armor. Also, the Kongos have the best fuel per hex usage of the IJN BBs, do they not? The 36 would be ok if it were more. The armor is too weak allied 8inch punches it. Fuel usage is like reported the worst after Yamato (per tracker) BUT... ofc most here are more experienced in PBM play (like you) than myself, so their superior tactics in using these weaker ships will make for it partly... Here a link from some other strategy game: "The Kongō is a semi-reliable battleship that can cause critical damage to smaller enemy ships before going under, particularly other cruisers. It is essentially a Fusō-class, but without the two centre turrets, making the Kongō the weakest Japanese battleship in the game. Despite this, it can outrange lesser ships, particularly heavy cruisers, giving it a huge advantage. Its armour, while not considerable when compared to battleships, is very thick compared to cruisers and virtually invincible to destroyers. As with all battleships, however, it is extremely vulnerable to torpedoes. Official Description: Designed by Britain's Sir George Thurston, and entering service during the First World War, these were the first modern battlecruisers in the Imperial Navy. They are well armed, with large main and secondary batteries, and have recently received upgrades to their armour and engines. However, they are still not a match for modern battleships, though smaller surface ships have much to fear from them." Sounds acurate - if they actually would NOT close to enemy cruisers and stay at range, but seems they do not do this in my game http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Battlestations:_Pacific/Japanese_Warships

DRF99 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 6:06:13 PM)
The Kongos are upgraded battlecruisers with all the strengths and weaknesses of the design. Armour was sacrificed for speed. They were to to outrun any ship with similar or heavier armament and chase down any ship with lesser armament. They should be able to win against a CA but should loose against a real BB.

Revthought -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 6:20:21 PM)
I notice a trend here. It appears the fuel is an issue for the IJN in WiTPAE. I wonder if the same was true of the IJN during the Second World War. [:D]

Encircled -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 7:23:44 PM)
The Kongos with their speed and high crew experience are the best battlewagons until the better US ones come along (and they need some serious training) and how can you criticize any of the IJN heavy cruisers?

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 7:43:55 PM)
There is nothing wrong with those ships, they are only too few.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 7:49:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Encircled The Kongos with their speed and high crew experience are the best battlewagons until the better US ones come along (and they need some serious training) and how can you criticize any of the IJN heavy cruisers? It was really amazing how many IJN ships survived until 44 in reality. Perhaps some were not used much, I heard a rumour that at Truk the hard pressed DD sailors would bitterly joke about "hotel yamato" [;)] See also this: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/29697/How-Luxurious-Is-The-Hotel-Yamato (from there: As for Yamato, I've always been under the impression that, for the most part, living conditions on her were roughly comparable to those in USN fast battleships, except for the provision of air conditioning for the citadel (which I know got added to the Iowas for their 1980s reactivations!). Remember, a large part of the reason for the "Hotel Yamato" nickname was because she rarely put to sea, partly because of her excessive fuel consumption, and partly because of the effects on national morale if a ship named for the country was sunk (the same reason that the most recent effort at a USS United States by the USN got renamed the Truman during construction). Musashi was, if anything, slightly more comfortable (thanks to the bug-fixes that were incorporated in her construction from the lessons learned on her sister), and didn't get a similar derisive nickname, likely because she was much more active during the war. (It's not uncommon for similar derisive nicknames to arrive for USN ships that are noted for being "hangar queens"; two examples would be how, during her very long c1980 RCOH, Enterprise was nicknamed "Building 65" at Norfolk, and how the Tullibee was nicknamed "Building 597" at Groton because of how frequently she was in drydock due to problems with her turboelectric drive.) Apparently Adm. Yamamoto gained weight while at Yamato, cause of the good meals and elevators etc. "

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 7:54:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought I notice a trend here. It appears the fuel is an issue for the IJN in WiTPAE. I wonder if the same was true of the IJN during the Second World War. [:D] Especially if one is sailing them all over the place with no doctrine in place. Every ship is also expendable for the right reward, they all have a value and a role to play. That depends of the person making the decision naturally, Yamamoto was prepared to loose his carriers at PH and later did so at Midway, most of us with hindsight would disagree with that.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 7:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DRF99 The Kongos are upgraded battlecruisers with all the strengths and weaknesses of the design. Armour was sacrificed for speed. They were to to outrun any ship with similar or heavier armament and chase down any ship with lesser armament. They should be able to win against a CA but should loose against a real BB. My Kongo was sent vs.cruisers and was sunk by them... with guns. At least other BCs succumbed to heavier and better ships like the British ones at Jutland or Scharnhorst (or was it Gneisenau) [8\|]

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 quote: ORIGINAL: DRF99 The Kongos are upgraded battlecruisers with all the strengths and weaknesses of the design. Armour was sacrificed for speed. They were to to outrun any ship with similar or heavier armament and chase down any ship with lesser armament. They should be able to win against a CA but should loose against a real BB. My Kongo was sent vs.cruisers and was sunk by them... with guns. At least other BCs succumbed to heavier and better ships like the British ones at Jutland or Scharnhorst (or was it Gneisenau) [8\|] Do you have a report from that battle? Day or night? What was the weather? What was the detection for both sides? What where the cruisers it was facing? Any DDs take part and what class where they? What skill did the commanders have?

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:12:54 PM)
Yes it is in the link above (commander was bad in leadership I overlooked him) as well seems Allies detected us per radar before. Still the performance of the ships sucked... consider it were a lot of good CAs and DDs (except weak Kongo). However I put together now 2 SF fleets out of my bad ships list above, lets see how they do [8\|] And let most better ships stay away from the enemy can serve as luxury resorts for the useless admirals aka myself haha [;)][:@] Also spend PPs for commanders all should be good now.

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:33:03 PM)
Any torpedoes fired in any of those battles? I did not find one from either side. Huge task forces, have you tried using smaller ones?

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:35:54 PM)
That's a lot of shell hits. Heavy fires is not good on any ship, much less one that is in the middle of combat. It's worth noting that in your battle report, 4 of the 5 CAs were British/Australian rather than USN. The USN has poor crew ratings in 1942. Am also curious what you mean by "low leadership" on the commander. If you're looking at "Leadership" itself, then you should know that Leadership has no bearing on performance (or on anything, seemingly, if recent tests are to be correct). Naval skill, however, does... but perhaps only in getting hits, not in getting hit by other ships. Also, your TF was extremely outnumbered in the battle where you suffered most of the damage. I find this factors into engagements at times - your ships just get pincushioned when outnumbered 21:4. Prior to that, your force wasn't outnumbered that badly and I'd go so far as to call them evenly matched... but due to damage, Haruna got split out into an escort TF. Since the range appears to have been so short, the 8" shells were able to penetrate the armor. At longer ranges, they would have bounced off. Last thing - Haruna may have suffered due to being the "odd ship out" here. I think your TF would have performed much better without her. In general, you should try to group similar weapons systems together as much as possible. In practice, this means a SCTF of CA/DDs only, leaving the CLs (or BBs) out of it.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:36:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Any torpedoes fired in any of those battles? I did not find one from either side. Huge task forces, have you tried using smaller ones? None of our torps hit, yes normally I would use smaller ones, but the Allies always have huge ones. Thanks for tips. But lets see how my bad ships will do (Yamato, Yubari & CO.) [8D] @ Loka, thanks, I reloaded the older turn and tried to find erros in the ships and TF which lost. The only thing I found was the bad leadership of the CO from Kongo class who served as TF CO also... the NAV value was ok (65 or so). So I concluded ofc that this bad LS value was the main factor. AGR was also quite high (60ties) I conclude for BB TFs use HIGH LS and LOW AGR, perhaps the BB/BCs than will stand back and not close to be holed by 8inch shells

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:53:24 PM)
Haruna was in an escort TF, in low maneuver condition and in fire when it was attacked again? Also some of the DDs with it where in similar condition? That is a pretty nice target in the night for a cruiser/destroyer force, like shooting fish in a barrel. I dont claim to know mechanics of the game inside and out as a novice player, I just use common sense and do get it wrong sometimes but usually the game gives real life results.

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:54:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Any torpedoes fired in any of those battles? I did not find one from either side. Huge task forces, have you tried using smaller ones? None of our torps hit, yes normally I would use smaller ones, but the Allies always have huge ones. Thanks for tips. But lets see how my bad ships will do (Yamato, Yubari & CO.) [8D] @ Loka, thanks, I reloaded the older turn and tried to find erros in the ships and TF which lost. The only thing I found was the bad leadership of the CO from Kongo class who served as TF CO also... the NAV value was ok (65 or so). So I concluded ofc that this bad LS value was the main factor. AGR was also quite high (60ties) I conclude for BB TFs use HIGH LS and LOW AGR, perhaps the BB/BCs than will stand back and not close to be holed by 8inch shells I do not think commander skills have much bearing on the engagement ranges. A high aggression commander will try to close with the enemy if that is possible (although low aggression COs may also try to do so), but the factors that determine engagement range are many. Among them, night vs. day - this was a night action, ergo the range was much closer.

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 8:56:34 PM)
Also the ROE settings have a role?

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Any torpedoes fired in any of those battles? I did not find one from either side. Huge task forces, have you tried using smaller ones? None of our torps hit, yes normally I would use smaller ones, but the Allies always have huge ones. Thanks for tips. But lets see how my bad ships will do (Yamato, Yubari & CO.) [8D] @ Loka, thanks, I reloaded the older turn and tried to find erros in the ships and TF which lost. The only thing I found was the bad leadership of the CO from Kongo class who served as TF CO also... the NAV value was ok (65 or so). So I concluded ofc that this bad LS value was the main factor. AGR was also quite high (60ties) I conclude for BB TFs use HIGH LS and LOW AGR, perhaps the BB/BCs than will stand back and not close to be holed by 8inch shells I do not think commander skills have much bearing on the engagement ranges. A high aggression commander will try to close with the enemy if that is possible (although low aggression COs may also try to do so), but the factors that determine engagement range are many. Among them, night vs. day - this was a night action, ergo the range was much closer. Yes, ergo the DDs and perhaps some of the CAs should have closed fire torps etc. then retreat back to the battleline (which in this case was only 1 Kongo BC). Also what should I do if Allies send 20 ships TFs vs. my 10 ships. Can I rely on that they perform so bad `cause of big TF ship number or am I outnumbered then ?

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:29:01 PM)
In real life Hiei was heavily damaged (later sunk by ac) against a cruiser/destroyer force, conducting a bombardment mission.. You decided to enter the Solomons meat grinder in a very historical manner.

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:33:28 PM)
Maybe you should not fight at all under those terms? What are you fighting for? Lunga? Is it worth it?

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 Yes, ergo the DDs and perhaps some of the CAs should have closed fire torps etc. then retreat back to the battleline (which in this case was only 1 Kongo BC). Also what should I do if Allies send 20 ships TFs vs. my 10 ships. Can I rely on that they perform so bad `cause of big TF ship number or am I outnumbered then ? Ah, but in WITP this does not happen. All ships are treated to be at the same range at all times, as far as I know. When it says "combat at 7,000 yards", then all ships are at 7,000 yards. It's an abstraction.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75