Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

... Sorry, but no. We built more carriers in 24 months than Japan did in the entire history of the IJN, and once we eliminated their advantage in deployed technology, we started smashing the IJN into paste in every remotely even fight.

No amount of aircraft carriers can ever hope to defeat the unbeatable strategy of only ever using high cover and spending 30 turns overwatching because overwatch is fair
 
No amount of aircraft carriers can ever hope to defeat the unbeatable strategy of only ever using high cover and spending 30 turns overwatching because overwatch is fair

Right, no. You're taking video game mechanics for infantry combat and applying it to real world naval combat.

I understand that you're trying to make a joke(or at least I hope you are), but it just comes off as the worst kind of fanboying over your favorite video game badass.
 
Right, no. You're taking video game mechanics for infantry combat and applying it to real world naval combat.

I understand that you're trying to make a joke(or at least I hope you are), but it just comes off as the worst kind of fanboying over your favorite video game badass.
Uh, what? He's clearly taking the earlier "like late game XCOM with no upgrades" analogy absurdly literally for comedic purposes. There's no reasonable way to interpret it as XCOM fanwank.
 
Well it'd be late game XCOM with no upgrades, and youd be forced to use rookies. With 1 hp.

And you only have 10.

And every single time you fail a mission they must die.
 
Uh, what? He's clearly taking the earlier "like late game XCOM with no upgrades" analogy absurdly literally for comedic purposes. There's no reasonable way to interpret it as XCOM fanwank.

He clearly referred to the Overwatch game mechanic. But agreed, enough of this derail.

 
Ok,Depending on the When the poor SoB was Dropped in Japan it could range from fairly decent to insane.
Anytime before the late 20's he's golden it's late 20's on that things start to go down hill hard.
Mid to late 30's Japans in Freefall with a low level Civil war ongoing to boot.
 

Anywho, that entire derail assumes there is someone in Japan. I've never said there is (or isn't).
 
[notices author's post]
And now I'm reminded of the movie Crimson Tide. Fitting, as I saw it last weekend.
 
Partly. The first two of those years had to be spent building up the logistical base and assets because even with the US's industrial might, crossing the Pacific ain't a stroll.
Random trivia note. Almost every country involved in WW2 shifted over to a complete war economy, with over 90% of industrial production dedicated to the war effort, leaving only enough civilian production to just barely keep the civilian population alive and producing war materiel. ALMOST every country.

The US peaked in 1944 at about 30% of industry dedicated to the war effort, before we started ramping down production orders again in late 1944 at the realization that the war was won and new orders would arrive after the end of the war. In other words, as rapidly as we were producing ships, planes, tanks, and other war materiel in mid-1944? If it had been necessary, the US could have produced three times as much.

That's right. Not only did we lift our foot off the throttle a year early, the US economy never really got out of second gear for WW2. Think about that...
 
The US peaked in 1944 at about 30% of industry dedicated to the war effort, before we started ramping down production orders again in late 1944 at the realization that the war was won and new orders would arrive after the end of the war. In other words, as rapidly as we were producing ships, planes, tanks, and other war materiel in mid-1944? If it had been necessary, the US could have produced three times as much.

In some cases, the military had no idea what to do with all the crap they already had.(See, the Navy and destroyers) Also, the "three times as much" is a dangerous assumption - thanks to its low population density, and large graphical area, full wartime economic production for the US is probably closer to 80-85%.

While good as an "order of magnitude" estimate, I wouldn't bet any serious money on it being exact.
 
In some cases, the military had no idea what to do with all the crap they already had.(See, the Navy and destroyers) Also, the "three times as much" is a dangerous assumption - thanks to its low population density, and large graphical area, full wartime economic production for the US is probably closer to 80-85%.

While good as an "order of magnitude" estimate, I wouldn't bet any serious money on it being exact.
Workforce could have been sated with temporal legal immigration, and the US did have a program with Mexico about that time to bring workers to help with the crops so additional personnel could have been brought from other countries so you could add an additional 5% to the estimates.
 
Workforce could have been sated with temporal legal immigration, and the US did have a program with Mexico about that time to bring workers to help with the crops so additional personnel could have been brought from other countries so you could add an additional 5% to the estimates.

The issue isn't population. It's twofold. First off, the US is big, and, at the time, very rural. This means that you have to spend a lot more resources bringing stuff where it's needed, proportionately than in a small, dense country like the UK. Additionally, a problem with "3X as much production" is that at a certain point there are actually diseconomies of scale, not to mention the problems of finding and developing sources of enough raw materials to support that kind of hell-for-leather production, and, for ships, finding places to put the construction slipways.
 
Back
Top