Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Japanese Naval Doctrines

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(59460)

unmerged(59460)

Sergeant
Jul 30, 2006
86
0
Hello, I have noticed that the Japanese BB, BC, CA and I think also CL have a max positioning of 15%, which has kept me from playing Japan in CORE.

My question is, is this intentional? and if so what is it supposed to represent?
This basicaly means that building any of these units is pointless because they will get sunk immediatly when encountering the US Navy.

Historically the US had supperior radar and fire controll which would result in better "positioning", but this has nothing to do with Japanese doctrine.
 
Poor Japanese

Second that. Naval Setup for Japan damaged:

Japan Core2 V022 (HOI2 1.3a) normal/normal

Serious problems with best Japanes Fleet (Yamamoto) against Skill 2 British or French Admirals and similar to russian sub fleets.

Time Period Years 1938-1939:
WW2 startet early - Munich failed in 1938 - was allied with germany
5 Battles Allied Fleets 11-25 Ships mostly 1 CV2 British Fleets many Battleships against Yamamoto starting with 3 CVs (Kaga, Akagi, Soryu) (1939 + 3 CV5s) and all BB and BCs of the IJN kombined with the best CAs and CLs. This Fleet consists of 20 heavy and 20 light Ships. Why am I strugling at around 24-26 % fighting ability and the allied fleets fight at 46-54 % effectivity.

And this fleet that would in Vanila (with some less Ships) beat almost everything takes more damages than the allied fleets in every battle.

01.01.1940
Stats: CV 45 75 BB 65 15 BC 65 75 CA 65 15 CL 65 15 DD 65 15
Industrial Techs: Radar Theory, Functional Radar
1937 Electronics, Encryption, Decryption
researching 1941 Heavy Industries required vor 1939 Electronics
Naval Doctrines:
Naval Superiority all except 1942 Radar Fighting Doctrin still not available
Carrier Warfare till Carrier Task Force
Naval Infrastructure & Fleet Logistics all

Please explain whats going on :confused:
As it is Japanese Naval Power Projection is seriously broken.

And why has Japan no Hospital-Tech-Tree?

Or should I try only CVs BCs and Transports and wreck the existing navy? ;)
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your reply, it seems that the high min-positioning is supposed to increase the chance to close the range, however the max-positioning of 15% will result in your ships shooting at each other or targeting enemy screens rather than capital ships. Soooo, I will try to manually edit Japans starting techs and change their Naval Doctrin to the American one, hope I get this to work.
 
Thanks Talliarthe for the links. The Answers supplied bye MateDow and Others are not satisfying.

There are lots of Japanese Disadvantages in Core2:
Semi-Industrial Economy
Needs 1939 Heavy Industries (req. 1939 Base Industry) for developing 1937 Electronics
Needs 1941 Heavy Industries (req. 1941 Base Industry) for developing 1939 Electronics
Needs 1943 Heavy Industries (req. 1943 Base Industry) for developing 1941 Electronics
= results in very slow 2 years behind radar (incl. modern planes) technologies.
No Hospital Techs (why ?)


If anyone says "works as designed" on this gamebreaking bug or mentions "a successful japanese navy is ahistorical" - a navy for Japan would be quite useless and playing Japan with Core would be senseless - specially in Multiplayer.

Historically Japan did well against the Allies and the US until codebreaking and radar gave their enemy the huge advantage (example Midway). In my opinion the japanese Navy is the Nr. 2 in WW2 because of more modern Ships and larger Carriers than the Royal Navy.

This problem is known for 2 month - fix it please !

(My Decisions were the Independent doctrines not the historical Battleline.)
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Agree that the doctries for some nations aren't getting the desired results. I'll bring this up with Matedow again and see what he wants to do. Re: some of the other comments:

Semi-Industrial Economy: While JAP had come a long ways in a short time the Japanese economy was simply not on the same level as the leading industrial nations so JAP needs to start as SI. This does a good job of modeling the RW limitations faced by JAP and it is not going to change just to make JAP more 'fun' to play.

Hospital Techs: There are no Hospital Techs in CORE and we won't be adding them either. Not enough modeling return to justify the space in the Tech trees.

mm
 
dec152000 said:
Hospital Techs: There are no Hospital Techs in CORE and we won't be adding them either. Not enough modeling return to justify the space in the Tech trees.
Click to expand...

My mistake: Changing game (from DD to Core2) and nation (GER to JAP) got me confused. Normally I will play only DD with Core2 V. 0.3!

A different kind of setup for Japan is ok - and semi-industrial adds flavour to the game, because you are forced to take a different research path - leading to a very early research-Alliance (February 1938) with Germany. This caused me a lot of enemies and an early end of my peace time in September 1938 when Britain declared war on Germany over Munich. Great Fun !

The Naval positioning on the other hand limits the Japanese, Italian (see Bigdave above) and German (?) Navies to playing "non-navy" and this is an unpleasant choice for Japan and Italy. The discribed "shooting at the own ships and missing the enemy" as a result of this bug is very negative.

By the way I dont favor a IJN with american doctrine stats. Please let me play "What-Ifs" e.g. Japan with Radar & Codebreaking and lots of Research in Navy and Army Doctrines.
 
Last edited:
the problem with naval doctrine is that, there are only so many ways that you can alter the behaviour of vessels in combat, and they are pretty much all in doctrine form. thus when we come to a situation with the IJN, who had a few sighnificant victories in the early part of the war but were eventually beaten by a lack of technological development when compared to the US, the only way to really simulate this is by giving horrific positioning values, however they can still beat any opposing navy in a variety of ways. for example you could build a large fleet of CV1's very quickly and fairly inexpensively, i hate doing this and thus have never done so, however it is an available if somewhat unsporting strategy, or you could play (as i do) to a very cautious strategy whereby you send your carriers out with the most advanced screens available specifically to target to oppositions carriers and battleships, leaving you with a fairly open sea to operate against the american heavy cruisers and escorts being that they don't build battlecruisers.
 
Bigdave3025 said:
the problem with naval doctrine is that, there are only so many ways that you can alter the behaviour of vessels in combat, and they are pretty much all in doctrine form. thus when we come to a situation with the IJN, who had a few sighnificant victories in the early part of the war but were eventually beaten by a lack of technological development when compared to the US, the only way to really simulate this is by giving horrific positioning values, however they can still beat any opposing navy in a variety of ways. for example you could build a large fleet of CV1's very quickly and fairly inexpensively, i hate doing this and thus have never done so, however it is an available if somewhat unsporting strategy, or you could play (as i do) to a very cautious strategy whereby you send your carriers out with the most advanced screens available specifically to target to oppositions carriers and battleships, leaving you with a fairly open sea to operate against the american heavy cruisers and escorts being that they don't build battlecruisers.
Click to expand...

The CV1 buildttime is a bug that will be corrected. My fictional Japan is much better than the historical (should be with historical and Core2 knowledge and the AI weaknesses). The Naval Positioning leads to very bizarre situations: in 1938 and 1939 my 25+ best ships including 3 CVs (later 6) best BBs and BCs and best CLs with Yamamoto had serious problems with 11 French Ships attacking the Japanese Coast (1 old CV). I am quite shure that small french, russian and british fleets in WW2 had almost no chance against the best japanese ships in japanese or chinese waters.

Also the positioning problems are negative in anti submarine warfare.

IMO almost every Japanese Player wants to have a chance to win naval battles or invade the US. To do this Core2 requires huge parts of the "few" Japanese ICs and lots of research with the semi-industrial disadvantage. The naval positioning-bug devalues this investment. Therefore 80% US Strength with the same radar and naval techs should be possible. The percentage could be open to discussion.

At the moment an invasion of Hawai could be stoped by 2 US-Carriers with a few ships against the whole IJN. This is not acceptable.

All Argumnents like "The Japanese Navy sucks" maybe historically correct, but similar claims could be made for the rusian, french, RN and early US (- Midway). Because navy performance depends on modern ships, leaders, doctrines and the key techs radar and codebreaking. The human player can change most of these factors and building more ships to a wining combination.

Please give the Axis Navies a better (not equal to US) chance in naval positioning!
 
Last edited:
HFL said:
The CV1 buildttime is a bug that will be corrected.
Click to expand...
And is corrected within the latest 0.253b beta.

HFL said:
Please give the Axis Navies a better (not equal to US) chance in naval positioning!
Click to expand...
The min/max positioning issue is mantified, and should be part of the revamped naval tech tree in 0.3. So it's definately on the to-do list. I hope you can spare the wait.

And I completely concur with Dec that posting these issues on www.terranova.dk will ensure a much quicker response. That's where all the CORE action is anyway. ;)
 
Thanks Hagar & Dec !

Studied the Core2-Forum at www.terranova.dk for some time. The Core2 Forum is highly divided into many different topics. General threads "feel" better at the paradox-forum. Next time I do more research at the Core2-forum and post there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back