• 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.
Here is my proposal regarding research (it's a whole plan, not just an addendum):

IJA
* - this means that we can start researching a given tech in advance (Nov/Dec before the no-ahead-of-time-research-penalty-area)

Small Arms*
Offensive Support Weapons
Bridging Equipment (river crossings are always troublesome)
ART Barrel/Ammunition & Carriage/Sights
Specialist Missions

FTR Pilot Training & FTR Ground Crew Training
Combat Radios
Infantry Training* & Artillery Training* & Officer Training
Defensive Support Weapons
Man-portable AT Weapons
Combat Medicine

CAS Ground Crew Training & CAS Pilot Training
Tank Crew Training (this costs nothing IC-wise and we need to be ready for tanks and tank destroyers in advance) & Security Training
Jungle Warfare Equipment (many areas in China and Southeast Asia are covered in jungles)
AT Barrel/Sights & AT Ammunition/Muzzle & AA Carriage/Sights & AA Barrel/Ammunition
AC Gun & AC Armour & Truck Engine
Breakthrough Exploitation (when available)
All Medium Armour Techs

We should have enough money to cover most of the Army's needs.

I agree that Rocket Tests need to be conducted, but no rocket testing facilities ATM. We do not have enough spare IC for that.
 
Last edited:
Navy
As a General its difficult to understand why these 3 was not the first focus of naval doctrines, even if the other choices are not fatally bad.
Fire control
Command decision
Radar

Probably these techs were up to date already, hence not part of the projects being currently researched?
 
Gen Surt, Gen Cybvep, we're still waiting for your proposed production plans? It seems to me that this is the main issue keeping us from going ahead right now.
 
It should also be noted that the latest research plan for the Navy didn't include these techs - and nobody made any changes.

The Administration believes that a new research plan for the Navy should be made.

It should be noted that the navy presumed that these techs were part of the schedule already, hence no changes were asked for.
 
*There is never enough LP to research everything. That's why we have priority lists. If I went to the bottom of the list, then I would start researching other techs. Otherwise, I stick to the plan.
 
Gen Surt, Gen Cybvep, we're still waiting for your proposed production plans? It seems to me that this is the main issue keeping us from going ahead right now.

We continue with the plan from last time.
More rail(a lot more rail if it gets decided we cancel the factories), some inf/gar, a H-Ftr
If we suddenly get rich I'd like a rocket site and 4 Infantry Homengun more(32 inf+X).
If we inherit a rich uncle I would like a Mech+Tank Gundan for testing.

---- *** ---
But right now I have a moral crisis, we need to defeat the US fleet and we need to prevent a German defeat.
As for defeating the US navy we need BB/CV more than anything but they are all at least 2 years out in the future as none are being build now, a substitution of BC/CVL is problematic as BC's can't really stand up to BB's and CVL's have a problem if hit.
Land base planes are useless against large fleets [as CaG's don't get stacking penalty when on CaG duty].

Right now I don't see how any of the proposed plans have a chance to deal with the US Fleets.
 
It should be noted that the navy presumed that these techs were part of the schedule already, hence no changes were asked for.

I think the Admirals might want to make a complete list again of all their research. The Imperial clerk posted a list of all techs in a resent post.
 
But right now I have a moral crisis, we need to defeat the US fleet and we need to prevent a German defeat.
As for defeating the US navy we need BB/CV more than anything but they are all at least 2 years out in the future as none are being build now, a substitution of BC/CVL is problematic as BC's can't really stand up to BB's and CVL's have a problem if hit.
Land base planes are useless against large fleets [as CaG's don't get stacking penalty when on CaG duty].

Right now I don't see how any of the proposed plans have a chance to deal with the US Fleets.
Do I sense defeatism?

We cannot do much to help Germany at this point. This is an unfortunate fact - we need to deal with it.

Carriers are just floating platforms for planes - CAGs are the real source of their power. If we had a large bomber force, we could hurt the US ships in ports at long ranges, but we don't. Therefore, CAGs need to suffice. As for the BCs, they have almost as much firepower as BBs, but have less protection and more mobility. It's a trade-off.

Again, I advise the Admirals to take a conservative stance in the Pacific. Advance slowly, one island at a time. Do not overextend ourselves. Use land-based aircraft for air cover wherever possible - our fighters performed well during the Guam Campaign. One disaster can remove our chance at winning this war and put us on the defensive, so we need to do everything that is in our power to prevent such a disaster from happening. Our best bet is to keep the bravado in check.

I'm also surprised that General Surt seems reluctant to comment on our situation in China. We were pushed back a bit in the South, but it may be possible to solve this. How? A massive attack with everything we have on a broad front in Central China. We need to adopt a defensive stance in the North and move westwards. Our main goal should be to deprive the Chinese of all air bases. This coincides well with our infrastructure development program - if we focus on improving 4-lvl provinces to 5-lvl ones, it should increase the supply availability.

In regard to production, I think that we need to increase the budget reserved for equipment modernisation. The Army does not need many more GARs right now, but the Navy does. However, the Army needs more Kempeitai to keep the order in China and maximize the economic benefits coming from the occupation of the region (we should replace orders for more IJA GARs with MPs). The Army also needs to focus on infantry and aircraft. I think that we need more infantry divisions with additional engineers, especially, as they improve our chances in harsh terrain. As soon as more infantry divisions are available, cavalry divisions should be withdrawn from the frontline and focus on anti-partisan duties, while infantry should fill the gaps. Western China is rough - we cannot hope to form big pockets there, so the cavalry's role is a minor one. Once the Philippine Campaign is concluded, we should be able to replace all our CAVs on the front-line with INFs.

There is not enough industrial capacity to produce more capital ships right now - as Admiral Baltasar said, new orders should be given when the construction of current ships is finished. I agree with Admiral Gensui's assessment about escorts, but CAGs are even more important.
 
IJN research list:
Battleship Engine, Battleship Design principle -> if we manage to start construction on another two battleships soon, we will not be able to research these. If it takes longer to start construction, the construction should be delayed until these techs have been researched to the latest level.
Capital ship anti aircraft armament
ship construction material
Large warship radar
Battlecruiser Design principle
Battlecruiser engine
Scout planes
Radar
Battleship Taskforce doctrine
Battleline cruiser doctrine
Cruiser escort doctrine
Fire Control System Training
Radar Training
Commander Decision making
Capital Ship crew training
Cruiser Crew training
Night Fighting equipment
(as soon as reasonbly possible, means without incurring ahead of time penalty for too long)
Carrier Crew training
Carrier Taskforce doctrine
Light Cruiser design Principle
Light Cruiser Main armament
Light Cruiser Engine
Light Cruiser Anti Aircraft Armament
Small Warship radar
Small Warship ASW
Mechanical Computing Machine
Electronic Computing Machine
Encryption Machine
Decryption Machine



Question mark at CV design techs... Adm Gensui Yamamoto, that'd be your choice. Same with Air techs and doctrines.
 
*I assume that you presented the techs starting from the high-priority ones to low-priority ones?

Mechanical Computing Machine
Electronic Computing Machine
Encryption Machine
Decryption Machine
Radar
*These are common techs AFAIK.

Battleship Design principle
*You realise that the next tech in line has 1944 historical year, right? BB Engine and Capital Ship Armament are perfectly doable, as they have 1942 historical year.

BTW the game ends in Jan 1946, not in 1944 or 1945. That means that anything that comes in 1944 is perfectly fine and things that come in 1945 may still be quite useful.
 
I'm also surprised that General Surt seems reluctant to comment on our situation in China. We were pushed back a bit in the South, but it may be possible to solve this. How? A massive attack with everything we have on a broad front in Central China. We need to adopt a defensive stance in the North and move westwards. Our main goal should be to deprive the Chinese of all air bases.

If we got supplies an all out attack should crush them, especially now that they lost a huge part of their production.
Maybe a supply map would be good?
This coincides well with our infrastructure development program - if we focus on improving 4-lvl provinces to 5-lvl ones, it should increase the supply availability.
[/QUOTE]

I'm unsure what you mean by this, do you mean the rail trunk or random provinces that have level 4 infra?
Improving all provinces are simply not going to work with our budget, we need to concentrate on the rail trunk.


In regard to production, I think that we need to increase the budget reserved for equipment modernisation. The Army does not need many more GARs right now, but the Navy does. However, the Army needs more Kempeitai to keep the order in China and maximize the economic benefits coming from the occupation of the region (we should replace orders for more IJA GARs with MPs). The Army also needs to focus on infantry and aircraft. I think that we need more infantry divisions with additional engineers, especially, as they improve our chances in harsh terrain. As soon as more infantry divisions are available, cavalry divisions should be withdrawn from the frontline and focus on anti-partisan duties, while infantry should fill the gaps. Western China is rough - we cannot hope to form big pockets there, so the cavalry's role is a minor one. Once the Philippine Campaign is concluded, we should be able to replace all our CAVs on the front-line with INFs.

I'm reluctant to make more MP as they are not useful in China after the surrender, as we then get a flat partisan value which can't be reduced, single gars on the most important provinces will be as good.

As for concentrating on infantry and planes that is good, 1 H-Ftr and the rest infantry in addition to the west rail trunk.
But I don't think more infantry can be meaning full employed at the front, but we are missing reserves for further operations.
 
I'm unsure what you mean by this, do you mean the rail trunk or random provinces that have level 4 infra?
Improving all provinces are simply not going to work with our budget, we need to concentrate on the rail trunk.
...
here. Again...

I'm reluctant to make more MP as they are not useful in China after the surrender, as we then get a flat partisan value which can't be reduced, single gars on the most important provinces will be as good.
*If you mean the "nationalism" modifier, then in HPP this can be reduced.
As for concentrating on infantry and planes that is good, 1 H-Ftr and the rest infantry in addition to the west rail trunk.
But I don't think more infantry can be meaning full employed at the front, but we are missing reserves for further operations.
We have 2 Homegun in the Philippines and we are constantly forming new infantry divisions. As soon as possible, we should replace CAVs with INFs on the frontline, as CAVs excel in anti-partisan operations thanks to their speed and have more than enough firepower to destroy any partisan unit.
 
I'm reluctant to make more MP as they are not useful in China after the surrender, as we then get a flat partisan value which can't be reduced...

Yes, you can. There's no minimal revolt risk in HPP.
 
To General Cybveb

I've added Night fighting ('44 tech)

IJA
* - this means that we can start researching a given tech in advance (Nov/Dec before the no-ahead-of-time-research-penalty-area)

Night fighting*
Small Arms*
Offensive Support Weapons
Bridging Equipment (river crossings are always troublesome)
ART Barrel/Ammunition & Carriage/Sights
Specialist Missions

FTR Pilot Training & FTR Ground Crew Training
Combat Radios
Infantry Training* & Artillery Training* & Officer Training
Defensive Support Weapons
Man-portable AT Weapons
Combat Medicine

CAS Ground Crew Training & CAS Pilot Training
Tank Crew Training (this costs nothing IC-wise and we need to be ready for tanks and tank destroyers in advance) & Security Training
Jungle Warfare Equipment (many areas in China and Southeast Asia are covered in jungles)
AT Barrel/Sights & AT Ammunition/Muzzle & AA Carriage/Sights & AA Barrel/Ammunition
AC Gun & AC Armour & Truck Engine
Breakthrough Exploitation (when available)
All Medium Armour Techs

lets add Rocket Tests to army so we can get it done.

Is none of the L.Arm tech for mechs?
 
Hmm, yes, Light Armour Engine affects MECH's speed. Besides that, AC techs influence MECHs, but that's already covered.


Shouldn't it be in common?

Night Fighting is fine, but it's a distant future.

Yes, but I think the navy got enough problems right now so we might as well research this tech, the rest of the rocket research should be common.
[I forgot to research rocket in my test game so now I'm getting problems in air fights (and the English were roaming unhindered in Germany!)]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.