Japan techs and units; what to avoid?

[Pugmak]

For ground units, all I can say is watch the supply consumption of the divisions you build. Logistics is a nightmare with Japan, just like it was irl.

It's often a good idea to go with slightly lower combat stats with divisions so as to decrease the logistics they'll require to function.

 

[MagnusStultus]

Is cavalry worth the techs/time? As USA I just avoided them so don't know.

 

[Mythrell]

They're ok at running down revolting peasants, but that's about it. Upgrading other than their weapons actually slow them down, so I would pretty much leave them as is.

 

[marxianTJ]

They're useful for CHI - just avoid upgrading them to the point that they're too slowed down - you won't need anti-tank techs and so forth when you fight nat-chi - and for *most* of the places you fight (Philippines etc). Then the left overs can garrison occupied China lol. They also draw less supplies and suck less in wonky terrain than tank/MOT.

 

[_karl_]

Then once you're finished with CHI you can upgrade them to something else. You'll have for instance experienced MOT, for a cheaper price that directly building MOT thanks to the praticals. The only drawback of taking that path is eventually that your MOT will be ready later. But since US and USSR will take some time to become a threat, it shouldn't be a problem at all. And at least you'll be able to quickly produce swarms of CAV very early, which will fit in the crappy chinese infrastructure.

 

[szcott69]

Pay attention to all the strategic effects you can get, you will be able to research anything you want, IIRC you can increase your research speed by close to 50%

 

[cfp]

aparently i made a mistake. initial speed of destroyers is 25 and CLs is 23. how stupid of me to use historical info and not those paradox "balance reasons"

Except, historically, DDs were in general a few knots faster than their CL counterparts. The Cleveland CLs were slower than the comparable (years of introduction) Fletcher class DDs, and on the IJN side, the old Kumas etc were in general slower than say, a Fubuki class DD. Later war IJN CLs were a bit faster, but then we have the 38 knot Akatsuki DDs, or the 40knot Shimakaze DD... so, it's as historical as it is balance, and believe me, I'm one of the first to call them out on historical inaccuracies. I'm sure one could cherry pick examples (i.e. Sendai faster than Akizuki), but this trend is pretty similar across the world.

Thanks; but what do I use for defense against armor instead of AT?

That's exactly what you use AT for. Or TDs, or Armor of your own although TDs and AT are much, much cheaper options, both in terms of techs needed (just keep upping the ammo tech for TD/AT and tada!) and in terms of ic/days. As Japan you truly shouldn't need to build armor of your own until the game is pretty well decided so stick with a few AT where you might need them, and take your time about it.

CAs are actually only 1 km/h in deflaut and are actually faster than CL and will stay as that-with proper techs, whole game.

HUH?! CAs are *not* faster than CLs, at any equal-tech point in the game. They will maintain their ~3kmh advantage forever. If you're comparing them to CVs, stress that *carriers* - not light cruisers - then yes you're right. But one only needs equally teched DDs alongside their carriers and that 1kmh adv. the hvy cruisers have over the CVs is evaporated and you'll never catch it without major luck on your side. Meanwhile, CAs will be sunk in large numbers.

Now this IS an example of historical inaccuracy. Generally CAs were as fast as CLs (i.e. Baltimore/Clevelands pretty much identical, Takao/Agano/Mogami (either 6 or 8" versions) also similar.) And for that matter, CAs *should* be screens just like CLs and DDs. Or at least have the option to function as such.

 

[KevinG]

In SP Japan has the leadership and IC to tech and build everything as long as you don't go ahead of time.