Japanese Priority erratta?

[JMoltzer]

I've only played a few games since I picked up the game, but one thing I noticed is that there are a few ships that don't make much sense to me as to why they got the priority level that they did. The Kagero DD stands out as one. Otherwise a Fabuki DD with reloads.

Also, what do the Sendi/Nagara have in common with Aoba/Furutaka that put either on the same level? Based on armament alone why would you ever take the Sendai or Nagara?

While planes are underpowered, I failed to damage a single ship with 12 flights of planes.... I understand they are getting redone in OOB.

Other than that, the game seems like a lot of fun

I'm hoping that there is an errata sheet out there to straighten out priority levels for all fleets that I just don't know about or find.

 

[juggler69uk]

Whilst the apparant anomally may be addressed in OOB.

The fact is that if you play either:
1. Historical scenarios
2. Only select from ships actually built

Then you will have to play ships that you would not normally select as you would in that all eleusive best ever "killer" competition fleet.

This is all down to personal choice and agreement with your opponents, but, if you do win with less favourable ships then the win does feel even better than if you won with five Yamato's

 

[Soulmage]

Whilst the apparant anomally may be addressed in OOB.

The fact is that if you play either:
1. Historical scenarios
2. Only select from ships actually built

Then you will have to play ships that you would not normally select as you would in that all eleusive best ever "killer" competition fleet.

This is all down to personal choice and agreement with your opponents, but, if you do win with less favourable ships then the win does feel even better than if you won with five Yamato's

If you play only historical scenarios, then yes. . . sometimes you will wind up with sub-par choices.

Playing only ships that are actually built however doesn't really pose much of a limitation except at really big games like a 5 point War level game or something.

I play only "actually built" ships and find that I pretty much never have to worry too much about it. There's always something else pretty close once I run out of the 1st choice. But some ships designs are so far down on the list, that they will, in fact, never get chosen.

Consequently, there needs to be some adjustment to priority levels to alleviate this problem to the extent possible. I think collapsing a lot of skirmish into patrol to allow for greater differentiation at the top end of the ranges might help some.

 

[gazman]

We've agreed to use the rule of at least one choice from each level for fleet games.
Otherwise it's a case of swarms of destroyers vs swarms of destroyers.

 

[juggler69uk]

........... But some ships designs are so far down on the list, that they will, in fact, never get chosen. ...............

This seems to happen in "free choice" competition style games no matter what the system, points or priority, people will only choose the "best of the best" available options in order to win.

Scenarion games stop this, and min/max lists limit the effect to some degree. (although im not convinced min/max fleet lists are an option or would even be workable maybe DM can comment here)

The problem with moving some of the cruisers down to patrol might well eliminate some of the destroyers from the choices as you said, the only benefit in the Japanese fleet list is the destroyers get depth charges, so the downgraded cruisers would be chosen in preference for their extra torpedo and firepower unless you wanted ASW capability

 

[DM]

Scenario games stop this, and min/max lists limit the effect to some degree. (although im not convinced min/max fleet lists are an option or would even be workable maybe DM can comment here)

It would be possible but, I suspect, quite tricky to do and do well. I certainly wouldn't want ayone NOT to have go at it