Bad leaders - Japan

[Gratch1111]

Is there a list of Japanese leaders that should be changed as soon as possible in the game?

[Chris21wen]

Is there a list of Japanese leaders that should be changed as soon as possible in the game?

Not to ,y knowledge. If you have Tracker use that to find them.

[Nikel]

There were leaders lists in the old Pacific War game manual, not sure how much changed, but may be still useful. This is an annotated version.

http://www.wargameacademy.org/cPCW/PcwW ... 100512.pdf


And the original

https://manywords.press/other-stuff/pac ... Manual.pdf

[BBfanboy]

Same problem on the Allied side - probably worse in scale. I just look at every ship in port that is about to sortie and consider whether to change them or not - even the little ships which can be great pests for enemy subs.

Most civilian ships can change leaders without cost if you can find a better one with the same PP cost (tankers always seem to cost 2 or more points). For warships, the larger the ship the higher the cost of change. TF Admirals are expensive - be sure to never disband the entire TF - preserve at least one ship in the TF and the Admiral will stay with it.

[Yaab]

Is there a list of Japanese leaders that should be changed as soon as possible in the game?

Some air leaders at the Takao airfield for sure.

[Maallon]

Think about what is most important for you in the early game and prioritize accordingly.

The following is an example for a possible approach:
Air:

• The results from air combat can be vital for success in the early game, so good leaders on frontline and carrier squadrons should be a top priority and may very well be the only leaders to replace on turn 1.
• Changing leaders on training squadrons is a low priority but should still be done a soon as possible to optimize pilot training.
• I don't think there is any meaningful benefit on having good leaders on FP or PA Squadrons, if they only do NavS.

Naval:

• CV: Carriers are the most important naval asset in the game and mostly already start with good leaders. So it is cheap to top them up and it should be a top priority.
• Subs: Subs are most useful as long the Allied ASW is mediocre and insufficient, also a lot of subs start with fairly bad leaders. Replacing them is cheap can be done on the fly, when they happen to return to port.
• Surface Combatants: It is unlikely that you will face a fierce enough Allied resistance on the surface this early in the game, so replacing leaders here is a low priority. Also most larger ships already start with good leaders.

Land

• Replacing Leaders on LCUs is expensive. Replace very bad leaders on large LCUs in important theaters first.

I personally wouldn't bother replacing a Leader with one who is only marginally better, especially on LCUs.
Depending on the course of the war, priorities may change and it is best to be flexible about them.

Of course you don't need to write a list like this, but just thinking through what is important and what is less important can help to make the decision making easier during the game.