First thing to build as the US?

[sveint]

What should I build at the very beginning?

I tried two carriers before starting reinforcements, etc, but I'm really not sure what I should be doing.

[ncc1701e]

Good question. Right now, I am trying to buy troop transports, marines and landing ships.

[generalfdog]

Imho I would say within the first few turns in this order light carrier(s), fleet carrier, landing craft, tac bomber with naval air, and inf corp. I don't get to excited about alot of landing craft or Marines just a couple to keep Japan on their toes until some sort of naval parity has been achieved. I buy a few corps to help defend Australia, New Zealand, or India, lba to hopefully help hold New Caledonia, Fiji, and Port Morsby and other then that for the first 6 Months to a year it's build mostly navy and mostly cvs some subs and destroyers, a few cruisers, no battle ships you have plenty

[ncc1701e]

And if I am asking the same question for UK?

I am tempted to modernize their navy first to defend India. But, I am not sure this is a good idea.

[eskuche]

Hadros built UK heavy armor which I think I will steal for the future. US carriers are a trap, IMHO. Once you destroy the IJN your only need for a navy is to blockade. You can meet this goal more easily and lopsidedly with air power rather than naval. Subs are much cheaper to do the same job as well. Escort fighters have very high range and allow projection of power more easily.

[Lascar]

Hadros built UK heavy armor which I think I will steal for the future. US carriers are a trap, IMHO. Once you destroy the IJN your only need for a navy is to blockade. You can meet this goal more easily and lopsidedly with air power rather than naval. Subs are much cheaper to do the same job as well. Escort fighters have very high range and allow projection of power more easily.

That suggests that subs are too overpowered against surface warships, especially capital ships like CVs. Very few capital warships were sunk by subs in both the European and Pacific theaters. I have seen instances where a mass of subs have sunk and damaged several CVs and BBs, in a single round of combat, without receiving one hit themselves

[eskuche]

That suggests that subs are too overpowered against surface warships, especially capital ships like CVs. Very few capital warships were sunk by subs in both the European and Pacific theaters. I have seen instances where a mass of subs have sunk and damaged several CVs and BBs, in a single round of combat, without receiving one hit themselves

Yes, I have ceaselessly written about this in the forums. Given their current price point, stats, and defensive buffs against attackers, and perfect surprise attack bug, there is no reason not to spam them. They received a CV targeting buff as well, which doesn't really make sense because they would have had to penetrate any screens (DD should probably have a much higher targeting priority for subs). This was even worse when they could blockade, too, in 1.03. Historically, the US sub force sank I think about half of Japanese tonnage (mostly through merchants) with only a few capital ship tags. They also had the highest percentage casualties of any service branch.

[GiveWarAchance]

Yes, I have ceaselessly written about this in the forums. Given their current price point, stats, and defensive buffs against attackers, and perfect surprise attack bug, there is no reason not to spam them.

This is very odd. You said you complained a lot about a problem that you are creating. If subs are overpowered, doesn't it make sense to limit your use of them to avoid wrecking your game? I think spamming an OP unit is intended to cheese an easy win.

Unless you are talking about multiplayer where both players will ruthlessly abuse every exploit available, then you have to cheese the game to offset the cheesing by your opponent (which is why I prefer to play against AI cause MP feels like a cheese competition, but I don't mean in this excellent game.... just talking about other games I have seen this happen in).

[eskuche]

Yes, I have ceaselessly written about this in the forums. Given their current price point, stats, and defensive buffs against attackers, and perfect surprise attack bug, there is no reason not to spam them.

This is very odd. You said you complained a lot about a problem that you are creating. If subs are overpowered, doesn't it make sense to limit your use of them to avoid wrecking your game? I think spamming an OP unit is intended to cheese an easy win.

Unless you are talking about multiplayer where both players will ruthlessly abuse every exploit available, then you have to cheese the game to offset the cheesing by your opponent (which is why I prefer to play against AI cause MP feels like a cheese competition, but I don't mean in this excellent game.... just talking about other games I have seen this happen in).

I house rule sub limits and only play MP.

[GiveWarAchance]

Maybe the game could have a sub limit added to it like a built-in house rule. It would help avoid the ocean being filled from one end to the other with subs.

[ncc1701e]

I have just done a quick comparison between Warplan and Warplan Pacific. What is funny is that naval units cost nothing in term of logistics points in Warplan Pacific. So it seems there is no limit here.

Subs are also cheaper to produce (base of 80 PP for WPP instead of a base of 120 PP for WPE).

There are two ways to limit sub numbers then:

• Increase sub PP cost

• Add some logistics points for subs

The main question is what is the historical limit to reach? Game scale is:
Sub group: 6–18 active submarines out at any one time

How many subs did the USA produced?

[GiveWarAchance]

snip

[ncc1701e]

According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_su ... acific_War

USA:
On 7 December 1941, the USN had 55 fleet and 18 medium-sized submarines (S-boats) in the Pacific, 38 submarines elsewhere, and 73 under construction. (By war's end, the U.S. had completed 228 submarines).

UK:
While Britain stationed a force of submarines in the Far East prior to the outbreak of war, no boats were available in December 1941. The British had 15 modern submarines in the Far East in September 1939. These submarines formed part of the China Station and were organised into the 4th Flotilla. Although the number of British submarines in the Far East increased in early 1940 when the 8th Flotilla arrived at Ceylon, both flotillas and all their submarines were withdrawn in mid-1940 to reinforce the Mediterranean Fleet.

DEI:
The Netherlands also maintained a submarine force in the Far East in order to protect the Netherlands East Indies (NEI). In December 1941, this force comprised 15 boats based at Surabaya, most of which were obsolete.

[ncc1701e]

So, in theory, 228 / 18 = around 12 in game sub units should be the historical limit.
@eskuche, what was your best number of subs produced in game?

[GiveWarAchance]

ncc, what is your house limit for subs in your games?

[GiveWarAchance]

How many subs do you use in one group? The AI is smacking around my convoys both merchant ships and escorts using multiple 5 sub groups.

[ncc1701e]

ncc, what is your house limit for subs in your games?

Well, I am just back to WPP. I was playing a lot of WPE recently to test Eastern Front with the new overrun rule.
So, I don't have a "house rule" yet for this.

[ncc1701e]

How many subs do you use in one group? The AI is smacking around my convoys both merchant ships and escorts using multiple 5 sub groups.

Interesting, I was also thinking of the stack limit for subs. In the game, the stacking limit for all ships are 6 (in the small fleet scenario). Thus, we can put a stack of 6 sub groups meaning, at game scale:

Sub group: 6–18 active submarines out at any one time

6 x 6 = 36
6 x 18 = 108

From 36 to 108 subs in the stack.

According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfpack_ ... rld_War_II

In the Pacific the United States Navy (USN) used individual patrol and pack tactics; the South West Pacific command (SoWePac) under Rear-Admiral Ralph Christie, based at Brisbane and Fremantle favoured the individual patrol, while the Central Pacific command, under Rear Admiral Charles Lockwood at Pearl Harbor (SubPac) used the pack tactic.

And later:

American wolfpacks, called coordinated attack groups, usually comprised three boats that patrolled in close company and organized before they left port under the command of the senior captain of the three.

Thus, looks like a sub group is already an American wolfpack on its own.

[ncc1701e]

They received a CV targeting buff as well, which doesn't really make sense because they would have had to penetrate any screens (DD should probably have a much higher targeting priority for subs)... Historically, the US sub force sank I think about half of Japanese tonnage (mostly through merchants) with only a few capital ship tags. They also had the highest percentage casualties of any service branch.

Don't forget the Japanese because sub attributes are for all, Axis and Allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ ... acific_War

Japanese submarines in the Pacific War consisted of 169 boats of the Imperial Japanese Navy. During the war Japanese submarines sank two US aircraft carriers, a cruiser and numerous other warships. Later they became used to resupply isolated island garrisons. The Japanese began the war with an advanced submarine torpedo design, the Type 95.

[ncc1701e]

The AI is smacking around my convoys both merchant ships and escorts using multiple 5 sub groups.

Pretty historical by the way if you are playing Japan. Did you research Anti-Submarine Warfare technology? Do you have planes with this technology protecting your convoy routes?