-
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.
[spymode] AHA! so this might be my problem! :ninja:[/SPYMODE]
all kidding aside, this is what makes me come back for more. I learn a lot by reading the experiences of others. Please keep sharing
[spymode] AHA! so this might be my problem! :ninja:[/SPYMODE]
all kidding aside, this is what makes me come back for more. I learn a lot by reading the experiences of others. Please keep sharing
Position is also depended on the Admiral and naval doctrines.
With the number of battles and the sinkings, I would expect our admirals to be quite good... if not the best available. May be Cybvep can shed some light on the ones he usually employs?
Our best Admirals are 5-6 lvl ones, with good traits .
Capital ships have the highest hull values, which means that they are hard to sink, but are also bad for positioning. Therefore, it's best not to use more than 3-4 per fleet. There are exceptions, though - if you know that the enemy's fleets are not dangerous (e.g. you are fighting China), then you can park many BBs/BCs/CAs in coastal sea-zones in order to get the highest shore bombardment modifier possible. Think D-Day, which involved ridiculous number of ships, which would be impractical in other cases, but the German Navy was not a threat in 1944.
.Remember to keep at least a 1:1 ratio between capitals and screens, although preferably it should be higher, because it's easier to lose screening ships and then your positioning is decreased, because the ratio becomes lower. Also, SPEED is important, as it affects the starting position of ships greatly. I'm talking about the average speed of the whole fleet here, so even if you have BBs in the fleet, high-speed DDs will help.
Capital ships have the highest hull values, which means that they are hard to sink, but are also bad for positioning. Therefore, it's best not to use more than 3-4 per fleet. There are exceptions, though - if you know that the enemy's fleets are not dangerous (e.g. you are fighting China), then you can park many BBs/BCs/CAs in coastal sea-zones in order to get the highest shore bombardment modifier possible. Think D-Day, which involved ridiculous number of ships, which would be impractical in other cases, but the German Navy was not a threat in 1944.
Last edited:
Ok, folks, it turns out that rushing is impossible in our case. Surt is working, Gensui Yamamoto said that he cannot visit the forums every day and Baltasar is going to have restricted access to the Internet during the next 2 weeks or so. Therefore, we will continue at a steady pace, i.e. approximately 1 update per week.
That is faster than we usually do
*** sneaks back to build some ninja battleships ***
*** sneaks back to build some ninja battleships ***
Yes, but it's a startThat is faster than we usually do
*** sneaks back to build some ninja battleships ***
. I think that everyone will be able to write sth during one week.Ninja BBs are gamey. They will not be allowed here!
Nice Naval loss graphic.
In my recent Video AAR. I have lost around 20 something vessels and inflicted around 100 something to the British and French in the years late 1937-1938.
In my recent Video AAR. I have lost around 20 something vessels and inflicted around 100 something to the British and French in the years late 1937-1938.
I think that our losses are higher. In 1942 we lost ~25-30 convoys, not including escorts. However, as you can see, we have been inflicting high convoy losses on the enemy since the USA joined the Allies, sth like ~15-25 convoys per 3 months, which is similar to the results you have been getting. The interesting thing is that our subs are mostly conducting patrols and convoy raiding is secondary to us. Unfortunately, we are slowly losing them...
I was talking about Navy ships. Not abut convoys or escorts. You guys had some really good results.
Ah, yes. Our results are very good in that department, indeed. The question is whether we will be able to keep the favourable loss ratio.
Last edited:
Anybody heard anything from Gensui Yamamoto? He is usually quite active, but he hasn't commented much on the latest update, he doesn't respond to PMs or visitor messages...
Yamamoto, ARE YOU ALIVE? Seriously, if you are preparing a post or sth, just LET ME KNOW, because if you don't say anything, I don't know whether I should wait, go forward or search for a new player - I'm clueless. I don't have a problem with moving deadlines as long as the delays are reasonable.
Yamamoto, ARE YOU ALIVE?
Seriously, if you are preparing a post or sth, just LET ME KNOW, because if you don't say anything, I don't know whether I should wait, go forward or search for a new player - I'm clueless. I don't have a problem with moving deadlines as long as the delays are reasonable.
I'll be less active over the weekend and depending on the weather next week. More rain = more active ... bah
Yamamoto, ARE YOU ALIVE?
Sure I am. If I don't get time to come online and post, then I can't really say to anybody I don't have time to come online and post....because I'm not online to post. If that makes sense :S?
Yeah weddings, drink hangover, traveling etc. takes time and although I had my laptop with me, not that much time to sit down and get to grips with anything. So I appologise. Also from the 19th-21st or so I'll be moving to my new pad so that might be another quiet time from me.
You don't need to hang on too long if I don't post. Anyhow...
Has anybody seen the crazy US manpower!!! HPP has made a right muck up with that one, the Americans historically had quite a small army in comparison to other nations in WWII because they didn't have the manpower for it. While they had women in work, Blacks/Indians were often segregated into their own units or prevented from serving, and many more people were kept back to 'fuel industry' by employers, then spurred on to fight for their country. I don't have the exact figures off the top of my head, but 6,000+ MP is ludercris (good job we didn't invade the US mainland!)
All I required was a short reply to my PM or a visitor message...
Oh, and historically the US Army was more than 10 million strong (or sth around that number)... They had 90 divisions because of a political decision - they decided that they wouldn't need more. In the event of an emergency, they would have been able to field a much larger army. The USA had sth like ~130 million people in 1940s IIRC. The USA also receive some bonuses, including MP ones, in my AAR. We also don't know at what level of mobilisation they are MP-wise.
Historical US problems with infantrymen replacements would be better represented by a lower reinforcement speed than by a MP shortage. They didn't really lack men, but they had trouble with training enough of them quick enough and sending them to Europe in time.
6000k MP doesn't mean that they will use it all for divisions, even for supply reasons alone. We don't lack MP, either, but so what? High losses still hurt us, our war exhaustion is still increasing and our officer ratio is decreasing.
EDIT: TBH the threat of "running out of MP" shouldn't be a real one in a typical game for a major country - the main concern should be the decreasing quality of recruits and a proper worker-to-soldier ratio.
.
Oh, and historically the US Army was more than 10 million strong (or sth around that number)... They had 90 divisions because of a political decision - they decided that they wouldn't need more. In the event of an emergency, they would have been able to field a much larger army. The USA had sth like ~130 million people in 1940s IIRC. The USA also receive some bonuses, including MP ones, in my AAR. We also don't know at what level of mobilisation they are MP-wise.
Historical US problems with infantrymen replacements would be better represented by a lower reinforcement speed than by a MP shortage. They didn't really lack men, but they had trouble with training enough of them quick enough and sending them to Europe in time.
6000k MP doesn't mean that they will use it all for divisions, even for supply reasons alone. We don't lack MP, either, but so what? High losses still hurt us, our war exhaustion is still increasing and our officer ratio is decreasing.
EDIT: TBH the threat of "running out of MP" shouldn't be a real one in a typical game for a major country - the main concern should be the decreasing quality of recruits and a proper worker-to-soldier ratio.
That shouldn't really be possible
.
Last edited:
I should be able to post the update today around midnight. It will cover ~4 months and will include some surprising developments. A bit action in the South Pacific, little action in the Central Pacific and plenty of action in China and Europe...
4 months is quite a long time for our illustrious group, isn't it? Well, this just means that there was nothing much to report in the meantime to warrant an interruption I guess. Looking forward for more naval action, though. Gonna be interesting to see what the Brits are up to once they realise they just lost the better part of their battleships in Asia!
Yeah, I didn't want to stop at 3 months, because our plans were still fully in effect and everything took longer than expected in general, so I waited until everything became more clearly structured.