First let me say i made a mistake. I Said SHBB 2 but i was meaning SHBB I (1936). This makes half your and my post useless as that changes a lot. I apologize because i was on a hurry and was not able to check. Ok, now back to the quotes.
No, that's plain wrong. If the sum of the whole fleet was used it would mean a twice as large fleet would have twice the range. That makes no sense!
↑
This in fact reduce the range by very little. All the key points are still easy to reach. The only place that gets a little harder to reach is australia. But you still have 2-3 docks acessible and can increase that if you build a lv1 dock in a dutch island somewhere.
The calculation done is an average of all ships in the fleet. Let's say for example 50% of your fleet consists of DD II with 1800km range, and the other half consists of for example BB I (3000km), CL II (3000km) and CA I (3000km), so 3000km range (for simplicity).
Without designer the range of the fleet becomes: 2400km
With Pacific designer on the DD II: 2625km
With Coastal designer on the DD II: 1950km
This range loss for example is the difference between being able to shore bombard Midway and not from your starting bases, and it will make all subsequent operations much much harder since you can't reach them without removing most screens, like reaching India, or further US islands / Pearl harbor / US mainland.
The range loss is even worse for submarines, which travel in groups consisting only of subs. They lose half their range straight off.
1-> Here is a screenshot with japan naval range with the starting fleet.
Here i have already some DD II with coastal defense in it.
See the difference? no? because there is almost none. (You can see there is extra 4 ships in the fleet on picture 2 and some lost range around midway).
DD II with coastal defense range is upgraded by stacking them together with BB´s, Carriers and CA´s.
So as you can see. Range is not a issue with DD II coastal defense. You still have acess to many ports where you can strike and only one need to fall for your range to increase. Also the only island locked is Pearl Harbor and John Island. (Midway is there acessible and if taken will give enough range to pearl harbor).
But going for pearl harbor is useless. You can cut the US and the allies from asia much more easy going for docks that are close to japan. (Philipines + guam + Hong Kong). The pictures are above in this very topic.
So your plan is to build all screens you want + SHBBs before 1939-40? And then focus 100% on Carriers? This can lead to a few issues if your playing against a real player rather then the AI:
- What happens if you get thrown into the war 1939-40? You now are forced to fight without a single Carrier except your starting ones, and no new Carrier fleet in sight until at least 1-2 year into the war since you also need to research the later Carrier models with the appropriate designer first, and then build them.
- What happens if you misjudge how many screens or Carriers you will need? ( which you normally won't know until at war)
- What happens if the enemy get lucky and sink more Screens or Carriers then you calculated they be allowed to do for you to have balanced fleets?
On 1.2 that was the plan and worked pretty well everytime.
On 1.3 im changing the SHBB by BC´s because more and more on my mind is the number of screens the real deciding factor beetween Japan vs USA and BC´s are better for that. (also japan have no BC´s at the start).
US need other types of ships to fix their ratio of ships that is completely different. (For example: US needs som CL´s as they lose badly to japan in CL quality and quantity at day 1).
-> The starting japanese carriers (3 ready and the fourth 50% complete on day 1) are more than enough to face the US Carrier II´s. They have a slight more planes making the fight in japan favor. If you rush carrier III you're gonna lose too many screens and capital ships to rush those carriers that will stop all production for 1 year. In fact hurting your ship numbers.
If you with to go carrier III wait end of 40-41. Carrier III Before 1940 is not worth it. Too expensive and without 1940 planes you are not maximizing the investment.
-> In a doomstack vs doomstack there is no such thing as "too many screens". Also the amount of carriers i need is ALWAYS 4. Never above that.
Every extra DD is a little more chance that their side will lose the DD´s first and start receive your whole fleet firepower on their capital ships.
Doomstack vs doomstack is just a calculation of creating maximum DPS and "HP". DDII 25% cheaper is the most efficient way of doing that. (SHBB2 is the other one for capital ships, the jap lack of hability to have 15 dockyards working 100% on a SHBB is what kicked me off from doing them).
-> More screens means i have less chance of losing the screen fight. Specially because my DD´s have 10% increased Damage and Evasion and US have no way of getting this bonus).
Now I don't follow at all... If you switch from coastal to Pacific designer in 1939-40, how do you find time to research and build SHBB 2 with Coastal Designer before this??? SHBB 2 is a 1944 technology last time I checked!
It's also a comparison that doesn't make any sense at all. Yes ofcourse a ship based on a 1944 tech will be more powerful then one based on a 1936 tech. The fact that you need a 1944 tech ship that is significantly more expensive to compete with a 1936 tech ship at all should tell you just how useless the coastal designer is for Capital ships!
Still what i said there are still worth for the 1936. Look the screens.
For a 25-30% increase in price you get.
-> Piercing 50 (enough to sink every ship in the game).
-> Armor 37.6% (The trick is that SHBB get a 15% armor from admirals = 43.2).
A US BB II need 5 Upgrades to pierce this.
-> 3 Extra firepower (4 Upgrades for a BB II to get this by XP).
-> 50 Extra HP (No way of increasing this)
-> 5 Extra range (5 Upgrades to get this).
Oh, and i can upgrade my SHBB while the BB have no way of reaching a upgraded one. Also the higher value means i get more from a Upgrade.
And yes. The idea is Coastal Defense until 39-40. Later going Pacific only to research carrier III. (just switching when i finish DD II, BC II, DD III). After 1940 PP is not a problem and i can switch anything anytime.
but that was on 1.2
On 1.3 i just make BC´s. 1936 first and 1940 with coastal later. Japan Lacks the steel to make capitals at 100% being a better investment of HP and Firepower to make cheap BC´s. Also saves japan of researching 1 extra ship. (185 days of research).
For the US is not a bad idea going SHBB I with coastal if you want to spam it. But usually im just placing 1 XP on the CA II and 1 XP on the BB II. (BC don´t need piercing upgrade to pierce another BC). Again the logic is to maximize the HP of my fleet and firepower. (More ships means a better chance of hiting something).
No, what you do here is throw away a clear bonus/advantage, in order to justify a bad choice.
No. What im doing is using the advantages of the country to play in a particular style that maximizes the efficiency. Naval Battles is not the same for all countrys. Each country have their own problems and solutions.
Those admirals change a lot of things in the naval combat.
Germany is another country that use very unusual strategys thanks to their leaders and manufactrers. (Specially the theorist that give a 20% discount in naval doctrines).
Not really. USA controlled by a player will have 100+ Shipyards, there is no way Japan alone will be able to keep up with their production, and you are losing combat performance on any capital ships or carriers researched while the designer is active.
The only hope to beat the USA is to beat them in quality of ships. By accepting worse ships to produce more of them, your playing into their strength and accepting a battle of attrition that you will never be able to win if your up against a good player.
1-> US can keep at most 40-50 dockyards working at full capacity. Above that they get a steel deficit that they either have to import, go export focus or eat a -60% production. (as they also don´t have chromium and need to fill at least one of them).
This can heavily make the US factory production suffer.
2-> Going 100 dockyards means you are ignoring your land and air production until almost 1939. Its ok if US only enters the war in 1942 but no way its ok if you can do it sooner. (depends on the game).
3-> Japan can Hold US until 39-40 easily. After that i don´t promise anything. More time passes more US can win by quantity and make up for the quality japan have.
Japan can keep 30 dockyards at 100%. Its enough to keep up with US in production until 1937. 38 and 39 alone is not enough to make up for the huge increase in quality the japanese fleets get.
PS: If japan get china or indonesia dockyard production go to 50. If japan get australia + NZ close to 60. With this japan is back in the game unless US wait until 43 or goes 100 dockyards at 100% efficiency like you said.
US need something around 50% extra dockyards compared to japan to win. More than that is overkill.
.
