Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Influence Wars - Japan 1936 HPP Interactive AAR - GAMEPLAY THREAD

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Admiral Baltrasar, I suggested from the start for only one Chinese minion, if Yunnan had joined I'd accepted them too. The Guangxi are more useful right now as they provide troops for coming south-eastern campaigns and will do some partisan hunting. Killing them off now would increase our threat far too much and would waste our investment in them. And keeping them and not making the Ninjang puppet would net us around 30-40 IC, killing them and making the super Nanjing of all former Chinese territory would net us zero IC or rather -10 to -20 IC from what we have now.

So we have 2 discussions, 1) to keep the Guangxi, 2) make the Nanjing puppet.
Having a good ally of a managable size that doesn't take our IC is ok, betraying an ally is not OK.
Giving all our very needed IC to an unneeded puppet is wasteful and you don't build many BB with IC's that are not there and research needed tech with LS that is not there are we are delayed in becomming a Greater Power.
 
Technical Question

Can you guys confirm that we'll not gain any IC at all? IIRC the Nanjing will net us a substantial boost in IC, resources and leadership
 
Baltasar said:
Technical Question

Can you guys confirm that we'll not gain any IC at all? IIRC the Nanjing will net us a substantial boost in IC, resources and leadership
Click to expand...
Why should this be the case? It's just a puppet state - they can produce their own units, they give you resources that they have in excess and they have cores in some parts of China, so revolt risk is less of a problem there, but you lose the benefits of direct control. We would complete any infra project before creating the puppet, but we wouldn't get the IC. Direct control of China is difficult, but it has its own benefits.
 
IIRC, HPP provides a bonus for installing Nanjing China as a Japanese puppet, hence my question. From memory, you get a boost in IC, LS and resources in XX%.
 
*Sorta-Author's Note: No, the China-Nanjing puppet does not give you any benefit via Strategic Effects like the British Raj. The only real benefit you get is that you don't need to worry that much about revolts. On the other hand, the Jingwei Regime won't have full control either, they will have their problems because they won't have cores on all of China, only the coastal parts around the capital. So you would get what you normally get from a puppet (ie. mostly resources and a separate army) but no IC. Also note that (unless you use an earlier version than I thought) you don't get any Leadership from provinces anyway, so you would only get IC from occupying China, and not really that much from that either.
 
*Technical note
What is the meaning of this blatant infringement on the holy thread rules?! ;)

I use the 2.04 version of HPP. What Surt meant by LP is that you can increase it by expanding your IC potential, which will happen when China is annexed. Currently Japan is a Major Power, while we are aiming for the Great Power status.
 
Cybvep said:
*Technical note
What is the meaning of this blatant infringement on the holy thread rules?! ;)

I use the 2.04 version of HPP. What Surt meant by LP is that you can increase it by expanding your IC potential, which will happen when China is annexed. Currently Japan is a Major Power, while we are aiming for the Great Power status.
Click to expand...

Actually China is not itself enough but its a great step toward the goal. As we only build 5 factories at a time which will be around 2 times a year it would take us 3 years to build the same number of factories ourself.
 
Technical note
Can we get a somewhat clear idea of what exactly "Also note that (unless you use an earlier version than I thought) you don't get any Leadership from provinces anyway, so you would only get IC from occupying China, and not really that much from that either." means for us? Ie, do we get 5, 10, 20... IC?
 
Baltasar said:
Technical note
Can we get a somewhat clear idea of what exactly "Also note that (unless you use an earlier version than I thought) you don't get any Leadership from provinces anyway, so you would only get IC from occupying China, and not really that much from that either." means for us? Ie, do we get 5, 10, 20... IC?
Click to expand...

In the newer HPP you only get leadership from education +0.25/level, from your power level ie. major power gives 15 and greater power gives 20, there are no leadership in provinces anymore.

This means we don't get any leadership from conquests directly.
The only effective way of improving the leadership is to go to higher level of power, ie. from major to greater to super.
We are only missing the IC now to step up.
 
In this case, I again suggest to conquer all Chinese factions we are currently at war with, plus Guanxi if it is politically possible. Their contribution to our efforts will be minimal later on and as Gen Surt himself says, the faster we enlarge our Industrial Base, the better.
 
The Chinese are just pawns! As soon as we knock out the ROC, we SHOULD backstab our allies.
 
*Technical note
I will be a temporary member of the IJN's Carrier-Proponents Faction. WE NEED A NEW PLAYER, so if you are interested, send me a PM or write in the comment thread.

*Note from Admiral Cybvep to Admiral Baltasar

Admiral, first let me congratulate you on obliterating the Chinese Navy. That was a job well done. In regard to our long-term strategy, I believe that the recent disorganisation of the administration which functions within the Imperial Japanese Navy led us to short-sightedness. The Empire cannot prosper without a strong naval force, capable of projecting the Empire's power over long distances. Without control of the seas, our merchant marine will be decimated and our armies will be fighting a hopeless battle. It is absolutely imperative that the Empire extends its shipbuilding program starting from 1940 and if necessary, it should be done at the expense of the current aircraft orders for the Navy and our naval infantry training program.

At the moment we have 10 CAGs and only 5 carriers (including 2 light carriers), which means that the Navy already controls more aircraft that it can possibly use. While it may be a smart move during a war with the enemy which possesses a strong navy and airforce, this is not true in case of China. It should also be noted that aircraft can be built at a much quicker rate than ships, which makes the ship-building program even more important.

While I do not hide the fact that I favour carriers as our main capital ships from You, I know that not every senior member of the IJN shares my opinion. Therefore, I think that a reasonable compromise is to create a mixed force, something which seems to be in conflict with the plans outlined by You. Your request for 2 more battleships is intolerable - neither the Japanese industry can support such build orders at the time nor it is rational, given our experiences in China. The guns of the battleships can only reach that far - once the battle is taken further inland, they lack to range to harm the enemy. It concerns sea battles as well - we cannot assume that the armour of our battleships will always protect them from harm. Moreover, I am sure that You are well aware of the fact that we already have 11 battleships and battlecruisers (and one more battleship in production), while only 5 carriers. Taking these facts into consideration, I request that we send an order for one light carrier immediately. If necessary, the naval infantry training program should be halted, as we already control the Chinese coastline and their major ports. The program should be resumed in 1941 (or sooner, but only if we can afford it), when we will focus on more formidable enemies than China.

The extension of the ship-building program in 1940 should be dependant on our progress in China. If it becomes clear that we will manage to subdue the Chinese in 1940, we should request many more ships, including carriers AND battleships AND light cruisers. However, if that will not be the case, I think that we should build one major capital ship at a time (alternately fleet carriers and battleships) and use the rest of our budget for smaller ships (especially light cruisers).

Concerning future research development, I think that the we should focus on perfecting our military doctrines and improving the quality of the training programs for the naval staff. Also, it is high time we invested some real money into the development of new ASW tactics and escort carriers, as any future major naval endeavour will put considerable strain on the merchant marine and make it very vulnerable to enemy attacks.

----------------

*High Command Meeting

Dear Generals and Admirals, I believe that the Army is already strong enough in numbers - we should concentrate on improving its quality instead. Logistical situation in China prevents us from sending more men there and our industry is already strained enough, so in my mind we do not need more infantry at the moment. We also do not need so many new artillery pieces of all kind. We should concentrate our efforts on improving infrastructure wherever possible, especially in southern China, where the quality of infrastructure is the worst and harshness of the terrain obstacles is the greatest.

All CTFs should support our troops fighting in southern China, as air support is badly needed there. It is also my opinion that SAGs should bombard the enemy troops in central China and when they can no longer reach the enemy, they should return to ports in order to conserve fuel.
 
Admiral Cybvep,

the naval air arm has so far contributed nothing when it comes to fighting on the water. All we have seen so far is the use of the CAGs as a form of longer range artillery. In this role, it arguably has helped out the army at lot and it even did so without using so much as a single ounce of fuel, food or ammunition which has been earmarked for the continent. As it stands, the naval air arm is a secondary weapon, one which will undoubtly play it's role especially once we turn our eyes elsewhere, but a limited one nontheless. The battleships still rule the seas and as such it is of utmost importance that we continue to invest into these behemoths if we wish to have a perspective of defending what is rightfully ours. Because of this, we need to continue to hone our theoretical and practical knowledge about these ships continuously, which means that we need to continue to construct more of them.

I do, however, agree that we need more and more modern escorts for our ships and the light cruisers are the most promising candidates here. But as you already pointed out, the larger ships need so much more time to finish construction, that we should indeed build them now since the escorts can be made ready a lot faster. If we need to postpone completition of our current units, so be it. This will should under no circumstance mean a cut in battleship construction, but result in the addition of another light carrier, for which we already have the CAG ready and on standby.

Whatever aircraft we currently can use should be based on Taiwan and support the southern front. This might already be enough to enable us to leave the carriers in the north so we can advance more quickly on two fronts at the same time.
 
Admiral Baltasar,

the results of the engagement with the Chinese Navy can hardly be presented as credible evidence, as their forces were token. The true test will come when we engage the US and British navies. Also, you admitted it yourself that CAGs can serve as long-range artillery and given the logistical constraints of overseas operations and the fact that the merchant marine already has its hands full, I think that it is only reasonable to produce more carriers.

Your request for 2 new battleships can only be met if China is defeated in 1940. In my opinion it is too soon to determine whether this will be true. I will accept the alternate construction orders for carriers and battleships, but it is imprudent to construct only battleships when we already have 11 BBs and BCs (+1 more in construction and ZERO carriers) and only 5 CVs and CVLs. Keep in mind that CVs can bring twice the firepower of CVLs, while BCs are almost as formidable as BBs.
 
Admiral Cybvep,

unless we plan to take on the Soviets, we will have plenty of room for the Surface Action Groups to be used for coastal bombardment. French-Indochina, Siam, the Philippines, New Zealand and Australia, all of these countries have their most important cities at or near the shores of the Pacific, where our guns can reach them. For all other circumstances, the Carrier force we have will suffice. While CVs might have twice the firepower of CVL, their worth in combat versus other fleets is still in doubt. Remember that capital ships can withstand even several torpedo hits while a carrier will crumble rather fast from just one broadside and the rounds from a battleship's main guns can't be interdicted while puny planes can be shot down and their torpedoes can be evaded.
 
Admiral,

You exaggerate the strengths of your favourite capital ships and ignore their weaknesses. However, I doubt that we will be able to convince each other to change our views on the role of carriers or battleships. What I want is to come up with a rational plan which both sides can approve. I disapprove of all one-sided plans and it is clear that you are trying to utilise almost all of our budget to fulfil your own personal requests.

I propose a following compromise:

1. Formation of new naval infantry divisions will be halted and one new CVL will be ordered. It is expected that its construction will take ~18 months.
2. Construction of new CAGs will remain suspended until we produce more carriers, unless pt 4 is in effect.
3. Construction of IJN Yamato will be finished in July 1940. This will provide our shipyards with much-needed experience in construction of such large vessels, which should reduce the construction time of future battleships. 1 new BB should be put into production in July 1940, when IJN Yamato is finished, BUT this should only happen after new battleship designs and modern capital ship armaments are researched! There is no point in constructing ships which may soon become obsolete.
4. IF the budget allows it, a new CV should be put into production. If we cannot afford it, then we should complete the production of 1 CAG first.
5. IF we still have enough capacity for new orders, new CLs should be put into production.

The plan would be expanded after the fall of China, but ATM I think that it is safer to create a plan taking the chance of a long conflict into consideration.
 
Admiral Cybvep,

I can't see where I am exaggerating. All experiences so far, both our own and those of foreign powers, have shown that the battleship is the dominant and single most important tool for controlling the seas. The carriers have their uses too, but so have all other ships. You plan to make the carriers a main weapon of our arsenal while there is nothing more than ideas evolving around their worthyness in combat. Hence it seems futile to expand this arm greatly without any proofs for it's usefulness.

I can agree upon postoning both the SNLF and the current production queue of CAGs for a CVL. However, once the IJN Yamato is finished by July 1940, we do need to start another two battleships for the afore mentioned reasons. I fully expect the latest technologies available by then, so construction should start immediately once the Yamato is finished her trials. If there is any budget left, the navy air arm may utilize it for more carriers. However, considering that we agree upon the CVL and the other decisions are somewhat in the future, we might want to take a break and consider the circumstance once we have to decide.
 
Admiral Baltasar,

Your opinion is based on conjecture, because you cannot possibly know how battleships will fare against carriers in sea battles. Carriers are a new form of weapon which I am sure will soon dominate the seas. Even if treated as mobile air platforms, you cannot possibly underestimate their importance in the future conflict on the Pacific Ocean, given the fact that aircraft will be able to engage the enemy ships long before they manage to close in. Keep in mind that battleships are rather slow ships - in fact, if you plan to confront the enemy CTFs with SAGs, battlecruisers would probably be a better choice due to their greater mobility. Also, we can say without any doubt that both the USA and the UK will invest resources into carrier construction and even if You treat carriers as support ships, it is unwise to disregard the importance of air support in a naval conflict. The power and importance of air forces grow every day. You also completely ignored the fact that we have many more BBs and BCs than CVs and CVLs (and CVLs are much less powerful than CVs).

However, as I said before, I do not believe that you can be convinced to adopt my stance. That's why I proposed a compromise. Still, you keep insisting on building 2 BBs, which will consume most of our budget. Also, just because you expect that modern technologies will be available by July 1940, does not mean that it will happen (keep in mind that both newer battleship designs and capital ship guns have to be researched). I may resign from 1 CVL and agree to 1 BB, 1 CV and no new CAGs ATM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back