IJN DD Shortage

[Miller]

Hi all, I have put this game on the back burner recently but am looking forward to picking it up again once the 1.3 patch is out.

My question concerns the number of IJN DD's available in the 4 year long scenarios. By my count there is roughly 110, of which 20 are so poorly armed as to be virtually useless. Meanwhile the allies can muster almost 300 DD's.

Although not historically accurate, would it be possible to add some more hypothetical IJN DD's into the game? Perhaps an additional 25 Mutsuki class and 25 of the Fubuki (special type) classes?[&o]


P.S. I realise there is a "Great Pacific War" scenario done which includes extra DD's but it would not have any of the improvements that v 1.25/1.3 will have.

[Tankerace]

While I have not made a decision with regard to the non production (standard) scenarios (I can just see, I add 50 more DDs, especially the 5" gunned Fubukis and the Allies are stuck with hordes of obsolete Flush Deckers. Whine-o-rama [:D]), in the production scenarios I will add doxens of additional destroyers, but at a penalty. As the Japanese must manage the ship building industry, they can stop, delay, or cancel the heavy units and churn out more destroyers.  This will add a bit variation to the game, either building more BBs and BCs, or more tin cans.

With regards to the standard scenarios, this I am not sure of. Even in WW2, the Japanese did not begin mass destroyer construction until the damage was already done, and even then it was lackluster.

This is not a definate answer, but rather a historical observation:

My first instinct would be to advise using Japanese destroyers historically: that is, not as ASW escorts.  To the Japanese, especially after the Russo-Japanese war, the destroyer was a fleet offensive weapon, designed primarily to engage larger ships with torpedoes, and then assume a secondary role destroying enemy (American) destroyers with gunfire. In both aspects they had an advantage, more and later larger torpedoes, and larger and more broadside guns (24" vs 21" torpedoes, 4-4.7" and 6-5" to 4-4" guns of which only 3 could be fired on the broadside).  While ASW is a WPO function, historically the Japanese all but neglected any ASW aspect. While provisions for 18 DCs were made in the design of both the Mutsuki and Fubuki designs, in practice racks were not carried. Moreover, the Japanese did not have an indeginous(sp) depth charge until 1930, and this depth charge was equivelent to the ones the British used in 1915, too small and unable to go deep enough to combat "modern" submarines.

The American destroyer, however, was a multi-purpose mass production vessel. Quality was sacrificed for quantity.  The large torpedo armament (12 tubes) was squandered in four triple mountings, allowing only 6 per broadside. The gun armament was an antiquated design, with only three guns able to fire on the broadside, moreover the traditional 4" and been supplanted by 4.7" on British, Dutch, and Japanese destroyers, 5" on Japanese destroyers, and 5.1" and 5.5" on French destroyers.  The area where American destroyers excelled was in convoy escort, older pre Flush Decks being able, theoretically, to carry 60+ DCs.

So, in a one on one engagement, the American destroyer is at a great disadvantage with the Japanese destroyer. Their only advantage, as would be historically, is numbers.

The Allies get about 300 Destroyers. nearabout 60 of these are British, so we'll remove them from the figure (they would be at different areas of the Pacific, convoy duty, etc).  That leaves 240.  At least 100 of these will be in reserve or escorting convoys (Of which, at least in standard non-production scenarios, the Allies will have more of). These leaves 140.  Figuring around 70 for separate work (independent DesRons, Cruiser Divs, Scouting, or, coming in 1.3, anti Patrol Boat and anti-Barge work. Japanese get 200 Sampans and around 300 Landing Craft, Barges, Fishing/Sampan Patrol Boats, etc), that leaves 70 for fleet work.

For Japan, 110 destroyers or thereabout.  If you detach 20 for independant use, and 20 for convoy escort (again remembering the historical Japanese maxim that made the destroyer a fleet unit, not a convoy unit, that leaves around 70 for fleet work.  So while the Japanese do have a decided inferiority in destroyers, by rights they should.  They have a superiority in cruisers (quantity and quality), superiority in carriers (quantity and quality), equality in Battleships (quality if not quantity), superiority in submarines (quality, not quantity).  So I don't think that, if balance is the aim, that the United States have a quantantative balance in destroyers, given their inequality in other fleet units.

While I sympathise with a destroyer shortage, I think the true answer lies in a tactics change rather than adding in a gamey balancing act. History, Japanese naval strategy, and Naval tactics born out of the Russo-Japanese war and valid through the Second World War just do not justify it. Yes, the Japanese get only a small number of additional destroyers (30) after 1924, the additional American destroyers are all the same type, and all are outgunned by all but the oldest 10 or so Japanese destroyers.

What should you do?  That is the balancing act.  I would use your oldest destroyers as convoy escorts.  Form light cruiser squadrons (of which you have more of, and more powerful ones, than the Americans) and ruthlessly hunt down American destroyer units, evening the numbers. In addition, form armored cruiser or battlecruiser squadrons, and hit his convoys (especially around the United States.  Station oilers out there, or take some islands in the Aleutians to use as fuel bases), and hit his convoys as quickly as you can as they leave the United States. At a cruise speed of 10 knots, a convoy can only travel 4 hexes a turn. Intercept them, hit them, and force him to assign more and more destroyers to convoy work.  Use predreadnoughts and shell many of his island bases constantly, force him to spread out his fleet or assign individual DesRons to each island chain, further spreading out his destroyer fleet. The Americans can be everywhere with their fleet, but each area will have a consistantly weaker force than your combined fleet. Wear him down, so that in an individual battle, you have a quantitative parity with the Americans, and there your destroyers qualitative superiority of bigger guns, better speed, better protection, and more and larger torpedoes will deliver you victory.

In short, my advice is to use the historical Japanese strategy of the 1920s: Ka o motte sho o sei-su, "Using a few to conquer many." This maxim was born during the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, and would last until World War II.  As the overall objective or War Plan Orange is to simulate the problems, strategy, and tactics during the 1920s, giving the player pseudo parity and hence render this maxim unecessary seems to be to be a complete deviation not only from history, but from the entire point of the game.

[Rysyonok]

IJN lacks DDs, Allies lack decent cruisers. It's very, very hard to go against a well-mixed IJN with BBs and DDs alone. 4 wolf-packs of 8-12" gun ships in the long run beat out 2 packs of 14" gun ships and several DD packs... Do you know how many flush-deckers I lost even before they got in range of their guns?

[Rysyonok]

P.S. I'm sure GPW will be redone once 1.3 comes out. I know Cautionaries will be