@dezrtfish:
@Cmdr:
Likewise:
1 Carrier warrants 2 Fighters
1 Carrier warrants 9 Submarines
1 Carrier warrants 2 Transports (maybe 3)
2 Carriers (with 2 fighters each) warrant 1 Battleship
1 Carrier warrants 3 destroyers
Where did the naval ratios come from? Who in their right mind buys 9 subs? With this logic the Japanese should build their nave up to Two BBs (they start with) 4 ACs (2 to Start) 36 Subs (1 to start) 8 transports (they usually start with 1 and 8 is not usually enough contrary to what Dick Van Patten says) and don’t forget the 12 destroyers…
That’s pretty much a good ratio I’ve settled into. After all, I am Die Flottemurder (the Fleet Killer).
Anyway, you don’t HAVE to buy 2 more carriers with Japan. However, unless you plan to have 6 carriers, I don’t think you should be building that 3rd battleship yet.
Meanwhile, what’s America doing with a 2nd battleship before they even have two carriers? Generally America won’t even buy that second battleship until they have a 3rd or 4th carrier because they need the defensive punch before the free hit. And of course, submarines are the go to naval unit in the Pacific. (Should clarify that ratio is a guideline, not a firmament and pretty limited to the Pacific, not so much the Atlantic.)
Of course, if no battle is going on in the Pacific, no one would worry about this ratio. Japan would power up to about 9 transports and rely on their battleships and carriers to protect them (assuming the destroyer and submarine were sunk.)