Japanese carriers

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
User avatar
alexvand
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:04 am
Location: Canada

Japanese carriers

Post by alexvand »

How many of the one class four mover Japanese carriers do you build. Much like my post on the CW navy, in the past I built everything in the construction pool in the past because it seemed cost effective to do so.

But in my last few games those slow carriers have typically been empty. They've occasionally brought an extra CVP or two to a naval battle, and sometimes served vs Subs. But I've begun to wonder if they're worth building at all.

I find the 5 movers helpful as they can keep up with the faster moving fleets. But it seems to me that it's more effective to build a few more NAVs than complete any of the 1 class 4 mover carriers.

Am I on track here? Is there some other reason to build these things?
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9077
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Japanese carriers

Post by Centuur »

No, there isn't. They can be used as extra convoy escorts as you noticed against SUB's. They might be good for use against the CW fleet, since they haven't got very good carriers and might be hampered by slow moving CV's. But generally speaking: not worth to build, except when you have a very healthy economy.
Peter
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4396
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Japanese carriers

Post by Courtenay »

I agree. The Japanese slow carriers should just stay in the construction pool. I have built the Langley as the US; this was a mistake, too.

The only country that can ever use slow carriers is the CW, as they can be useful in ASW operations, and even that isn't a clear cut decision.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
AlbertN
Posts: 4275
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Japanese carriers

Post by AlbertN »

The 4 moving ones?
If things go smooth in China or so I always build them the 1st cycle to allow "Ahead" carriers, which are pratically the only measure Japan has to somehow keep honest the USA for a tiny bit longer (in my eyes).
And I build the 2 CVs which are 4 movers too - til the end. At least 2 sized CVPs are decent even if their operational use is limited.

By how Japan is, and with CVPs dropping of tier rapidly I am better off with a 3 + 1 or 2 + 2 CVPs on carriers like Zuikaku and Shokaku. That leaves me very short of worthy 1 slotter CVP for the 4 moving ones - not to talk already the 5 moving ones.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8494
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Japanese carriers

Post by paulderynck »

The 1-class 4-movers are a waste of BPs IMO. If in the Construction Pool, they are best left there. If in the Force Pool I wait for them to be scrapped before looking at any larger class that has the same first round cost, so I can be sure I don't draw one of the useless ones.
Paul
User avatar
DQ2004
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 1:29 am
Location: Hobart, Tasmania

RE: Japanese carriers

Post by DQ2004 »

I usually do build the 4 speed Japanese CVs, although only as a secondary priority, because they are excellent escorts for the slow battleships.
If you are not doing well with Japan of course, then you probably can't justify the expense, and NAVs would be a better investment.

Regards,

Toby
"Look at you - you have HORSES! What were you thinking?!?" - Paratrooper David Webster
nilssone85
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 8:52 am

RE: Japanese carriers

Post by nilssone85 »

I agree. I build them as either convoy escorts, fighting the British in the South Chinese Sea or to protect my slow shore-bombarding BB.
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”