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 carriers

 
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] >> World in Flames >> Japanese carriers Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Japanese carriers - 2/24/2016 12:14:58 PM   
alexvand


Posts: 380
Joined: 11/29/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		How many of the one class four mover Japanese carriers do you build. Much like my post on the CW navy, in the past I built everything in the construction pool in the past because it seemed cost effective to do so.

But in my last few games those slow carriers have typically been empty. They've occasionally brought an extra CVP or two to a naval battle, and sometimes served vs Subs. But I've begun to wonder if they're worth building at all.

I find the 5 movers helpful as they can keep up with the faster moving fleets. But it seems to me that it's more effective to build a few more NAVs than complete any of the 1 class 4 mover carriers.

Am I on track here? Is there some other reason to build these things?

< Message edited by alex_van_d -- 2/24/2016 2:43:05 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Japanese carriers - 2/24/2016 12:37:54 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		No, there isn't. They can be used as extra convoy escorts as you noticed against SUB's. They might be good for use against the CW fleet, since they haven't got very good carriers and might be hampered by slow moving CV's. But generally speaking: not worth to build, except when you have a very healthy economy.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to alexvand)
Post #: 2
RE: Japanese carriers - 2/24/2016 4:01:43 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline 		I agree. The Japanese slow carriers should just stay in the construction pool. I have built the Langley as the US; this was a mistake, too.

The only country that can ever use slow carriers is the CW, as they can be useful in ASW operations, and even that isn't a clear cut decision.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 3
RE: Japanese carriers - 2/24/2016 4:38:03 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		The 4 moving ones?
If things go smooth in China or so I always build them the 1st cycle to allow "Ahead" carriers, which are pratically the only measure Japan has to somehow keep honest the USA for a tiny bit longer (in my eyes).
And I build the 2 CVs which are 4 movers too - til the end. At least 2 sized CVPs are decent even if their operational use is limited.

By how Japan is, and with CVPs dropping of tier rapidly I am better off with a 3 + 1 or 2 + 2 CVPs on carriers like Zuikaku and Shokaku. That leaves me very short of worthy 1 slotter CVP for the 4 moving ones - not to talk already the 5 moving ones.

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 4
RE: Japanese carriers - 2/24/2016 9:28:06 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		The 1-class 4-movers are a waste of BPs IMO. If in the Construction Pool, they are best left there. If in the Force Pool I wait for them to be scrapped before looking at any larger class that has the same first round cost, so I can be sure I don't draw one of the useless ones.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 5
RE: Japanese carriers - 2/25/2016 7:00:08 AM   
DQ2004


Posts: 770
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Hobart, Tasmania
Status: offline 		I usually do build the 4 speed Japanese CVs, although only as a secondary priority, because they are excellent escorts for the slow battleships.
If you are not doing well with Japan of course, then you probably can't justify the expense, and NAVs would be a better investment.

Regards,

Toby

_____________________________

"Look at you - you have HORSES! What were you thinking?!?" - Paratrooper David Webster

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 6
RE: Japanese carriers - 2/25/2016 7:09:02 AM   
nilssone85

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 5/29/2015
Status: offline 		I agree. I build them as either convoy escorts, fighting the British in the South Chinese Sea or to protect my slow shore-bombarding BB.

(in reply to DQ2004)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Japanese carriers 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

1.328