Construction Priorities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Luskan -> Construction Priorities (6/8/2003 9:38:09 PM)

Since polls are quite the fashion nowadays (I AM a trend setter ;) ) I've got one last one to throw out there to get some numerical opinion on:

WITPs construction model (as I understand it) for ships allows you to speed up the construction of one class of ship (or maybe even individual ships?) at the expense of all the others.

So - as the IJN (USN will probably still have plenty of everything), which would you give top priority to?

Cvs and BBs are a little too expensive for what you get in my book. Especially since IJN CVs have a shelf life pre-corsairs anyway. BBs just aren't effective enough in current combat routines, while IJN DDs seem to be the deadliest weapons - VERY fast, some with radar, and all with lots of deadly long lances that can ruin any USN admiral's day.

However rather than speed up the production of DDs, I'd actually build more transports to keep the Empire fed and fuelled!



LargeSlowTarget -> (6/8/2003 9:57:05 PM)

There are only two kinds of ships - submarines and targets!



Mike Scholl -> PRETTY SILLY POLL (6/8/2003 10:39:21 PM)

"Build at the expense of all others"? So Japan should lay down
20-30 CV's and build NO aircraft to put on them (not to mention
waiting 2-3 years for completion during which time she gets
NOTHING?)

IF YOU WANT TO PUT UP A MEANINGFUL POLL, YOU NEED TO
RE-PHRASE YOUR QUESTIONS TO SOMETHING LIKE:

"What would you EMPHASIZE construction of.....

A) Land-based aircraft.

B) Sea-based Aircraft

C) Surface Combatants

D) Submarines

E) Merchant Shipping

F) Ground Forces

Nothing is built in a vacuum, and everything requires the support
of the rest to some extent. What are ANY of those combat ships
worth without fleet oilers and support ships to get them there and keep them in action? Couldn't we at least TRY to be realistic
in these forums?



denisonh -> (6/9/2003 2:59:11 AM)

A balanced approach with a particular emphasis. CVs cannot win the war alone, as they cannot take and hold ground, transports cannot land troops without air and sea superioirity, capital ships cannot cruise with escorts to screen enemy DDs in suface engagements and submarines, etc....

Construction can be tailored to support ones strategy and one's methods of employment, it would hardly call for massive building of one type of ship.

Of course, CVs were not Japan's problem as much as it was manning the aircraft to fly off of them!



Mr.Frag -> (6/9/2003 3:40:18 AM)

Better transport network = better production = sped up building of non-transports due to extra materials.

Solve the root of the problem and come out ahead on the curve.



dwesolick -> (6/9/2003 4:01:55 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh
[B]

Of course, CVs were not Japan's problem as much as it was manning the aircraft to fly off of them! [/B][/QUOTE]


I agree. Look at the Leyte Gulf battle. Japan had carriers but they were only decoys because she had very few pilots. Or, for that matter, even the earlier Marianas Turkey Shoot: Plenty of carriers, lots of poorly trained pilots.

As the Allies (unless I suffered some terrible loss of a particular ship type), I would see no need to change construction priorities. Production wasn't exactly a problem (unless too much is a problem), especially by 43-45.

As the Japanese, I guess if I could change anything it would be to massively upgrade and expand the pilot training program (in 41, or earlier, if possible ;) ) Maybe scrap the Yamato and Musashi (beautiful ships, but pretty useless in the war) and build a few dozen DDs (to protect supply convoys from those subs). I read recently that just one main turret from the Yamato weighed about the same as a (heavy) destroyer!!!:eek:



Luskan -> Re: PRETTY SILLY POLL (6/9/2003 9:48:33 AM)

*sigh*

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]"Build at the expense of all others"? So Japan should lay down
20-30 CV's and build NO aircraft to put on them (not to mention
waiting 2-3 years for completion during which time she gets
NOTHING?) [/B][/QUOTE]

My understanding is that you can speed up the construction of some ships at the expense of others. Would you have preferred I said "speed up the construction of some ships at the expense of the speed of construction of others."??? You aren't going to be able to stop all production of all types of ships bar one to buld your 20 aircraft carriers (I hope). Besides, anybody trying that strategy would loose fairly amazingly.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]
IF YOU WANT TO PUT UP A MEANINGFUL POLL, YOU NEED TO
RE-PHRASE YOUR QUESTIONS TO SOMETHING LIKE:

"What would you EMPHASIZE construction of.....

A) Land-based aircraft.

B) Sea-based Aircraft

C) Surface Combatants

D) Submarines

E) Merchant Shipping

F) Ground Forces

[/B][/QUOTE]

Call me small minded, but I wasn't interested in aircraft or ground forces (not even certain the production model extends to troops).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]
Nothing is built in a vacuum, and everything requires the support
of the rest to some extent. What are ANY of those combat ships
worth without fleet oilers and support ships to get them there and keep them in action? Couldn't we at least TRY to be realistic
in these forums? [/B][/QUOTE]

Everyone else understood this as an implicit assumption - and answered accordingly. Why couldn't you? :rolleyes:



Dawy -> (6/9/2003 10:10:18 AM)

I guess which type of ship you give priority too depends on the situation of your game.

I'm sure the Japanese would had loved to build lots of everything but there was only so much resources they had to play with.

Of course you're going to need to build at least some of all the different types of ships, (CV's, AP's, DD's) since they all have to work together to achieve victory.

I would probably look at how many ships I had at the start of the game and then as the game progresses, depending on what type of ship I have lost more of, the more priority I would give to that type of ship (to make up for lost numbers).

As long as the production capacity for the Japanese is historically accurate in WITP, then you'll find that you won't be altering ship production too far from what it was in history.



Drongo -> Shame, Luskan, shame (6/9/2003 11:06:47 AM)

A general opinion poll on preferred ship types for priority building??? What were you thinking???

I'm almost too embaressed to take part in this silly poll. :p

As a clarification, WITP may end up playing very differently to history once players get through familiarising themselves with the game's weapons of war. What was a vital ship type historically may not be the one of choice for the players in WITP (and vice versa). I'm not basing this on what I've seen so far in WITP but rather on what happened in UV (intensity of mine use making MSW worth their weight in gold, etc).

If I was going with history, I would most likely speed up the IJN escorts with high ASW load-outs (I'll bet that shocked everyone).

For the same reason, another 2 of the fast Fleet CV types arriving ASAP to cover any early war losses would be a priority (delay the completion of the Hiyo class if it helped). Unfortunately, unless you can fiddle with ship construction pre Dec '41, the only fleet CV you could get early enough to make a difference is the Taiho. The Shinano is probably not worth the effort given it's historical capabilities as a fleet CV. If it was possible, give me 2 extra Shokakus any day (assuming that armoured CVs don't turn out to be uber-weapons in WITP ;) ).

Just for the hell of it, every possible IJN CL converts to Kitakamis by mid '42. :)

Other than that, the existing historical mix of IJN ship types and numbers is probably as good as any to give yourself a shot at victory.



Luskan -> Re: Shame, Luskan, shame (6/9/2003 3:22:54 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]
Just for the hell of it, every possible IJN CL converts to Kitakamis by mid '42. :)

[/B][/QUOTE]

I still haven't seen Kitakami or Oi in a PBEM game - would love to see them in action - did they do any damage historically? Pretty sure all the other CLs were involved around the Solomons or the Aleutians but no idea where these two ships were during the war.

Why weren't they at Leyte? Broadsides of long lances through those confined waters at ranges further than the little guns on escort carriers could shoot . . .



Drongo -> (6/9/2003 3:34:42 PM)

Posted by Luskan
[QUOTE] still haven't seen Kitakami or Oi in a PBEM game - would love to see them in action - did they do any damage historically? Pretty sure all the other CLs were involved around the Solomons or the Aleutians but no idea where these two ships were during the war.[/QUOTE]

One of the great unanswered questions of the war. The Japanese modify 2 ships to specialise in torpedo combat and then send them off to backwater areas where there is none.

Maybe they knew something that we didn't? Like if they tried firing a torp broadside, the ships would flip over. ;)



Mike Scholl -> Re: Re: Shame, Luskan, shame (6/9/2003 3:36:01 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]I still haven't seen Kitakami or Oi in a PBEM game - would love to see them in action - did they do any damage historically? Pretty sure all the other CLs were involved around the Solomons or the Aleutians but no idea where these two ships were during the war.

Why weren't they at Leyte? Broadsides of long lances through those confined waters at ranges further than the little guns on escort carriers could shoot . . . [/B][/QUOTE]

They spent what war carreer they had either in SE Asia or
in the process of being converted to Diahatsu Carriers and then
to Kaiten Carriers. I always wondered why they were never
used at Guadalcanal. Those massive Torpedo Spreads could
have "swept" Iron Bottom Sound---there was never a better
opportunity to test the "torpedo cruiser" idea in a relativey
"equal" situation.

The other CL's were used primarily as DD Squadron Leaders,
and were cycled through the South Pacific Campaign with the DD
units.



Yamamoto -> (6/9/2003 10:34:44 PM)

So, since we can alter production to an extent, does that mean we can name our ships?

Yamamoto



Drex -> Re: Shame, Luskan, shame (6/9/2003 11:18:38 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]A general opinion poll on preferred ship types for priority building??? What were you thinking???

I'm almost too embaressed to take part in this silly poll. :p

As a clarification, WITP may end up playing very differently to history once players get through familiarising themselves with the game's weapons of war. What was a vital ship type historically may not be the one of choice for the players in WITP (and vice versa). I'm not basing this on what I've seen so far in WITP but rather on what happened in UV (intensity of mine use making MSW worth their weight in gold, etc).

If I was going with history, I would most likely speed up the IJN escorts with high ASW load-outs (I'll bet that shocked everyone).

For the same reason, another 2 of the fast Fleet CV types arriving ASAP to cover any early war losses would be a priority (delay the completion of the Hiyo class if it helped). Unfortunately, unless you can fiddle with ship construction pre Dec '41, the only fleet CV you could get early enough to make a difference is the Taiho. The Shinano is probably not worth the effort given it's historical capabilities as a fleet CV. If it was possible, give me 2 extra Shokakus any day (assuming that armoured CVs don't turn out to be uber-weapons in WITP ;) ).

Just for the hell of it, every possible IJN CL converts to Kitakamis by mid '42. :)

Other than that, the existing historical mix of IJN ship types and numbers is probably as good as any to give yourself a shot at victory. [/B][/QUOTE] I am not embarrassed to take part in the poll as it's fun to think about. In fact I voted for DDs as I seem to use them as SCTFs against capital ships, as ASW platforms, as Transport escorts, and as fast transports for troops and supplies. I always seem to run out of them.



Drongo -> (6/9/2003 11:19:03 PM)

Posted by Yamamoto
[QUOTE]So, since we can alter production to an extent, does that mean we can name our ships?[/QUOTE]

At the moment, altering production refers to prioritising existing ships under construction. These would already be named although I'm not sure what they'll do with those ships that historically just had hull numbers prior to being cancelled (assuming they can be completed in WITP).

If you could chose instead to lay down extra ships in WITP, I'm sure there would have to be a capability to name them, although I could imagine what players would do with that (how long do you reckon it will take before the name Godzilla appears amongst the list of Yamato class BBs).



Heeward -> Shipping! (6/11/2003 9:02:01 AM)

For the Allies Landing Craft of all sizes up to and including AKA / APA

There was a major landing craft shortage throughout the world, until late 44 / early 45.

This was due to poor planing and there uses as floating wheelhouses every where.

The shortage delayed the Central Pacific Offensive into 44, and prevented any serious amphibious operations in the Bay of Bengal / Indian Ocean into late 45.


As for the IJN without any significant improvement in ASW and Army / Navy shipping coordination more merchant ships.

Which Mr.Frag said.

Better transport network = better production = sped up building of non-transports due to extra materials.

Solve the root of the problem and come out ahead on the curve.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125