Japanese Air Production Plans

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Japanese Air Production Plans - No Andydb!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Japanese Air Production Plans - No Andydb!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Japanese Air Production Plans - No Andydb! - 7/12/2017 6:16:22 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Hello guys,

I am doing my first serious Japan PBEM. Was going an AAR, but due to complete lack of time was unable to continue with it. Below you will find my air production plans based on a review of all Japanese planes. This is what I view as a natural progression in terms of fighters.

I'm hoping you all can provide commentary and feedback where I have made glaring errors or omissions. My goal is to setup production with the end-game in mind as I want to experience late-game defense of the home islands. I don't think I will be going for auto-victory (nor do I think I can against my skilled opponent).

If you have questions on why I chose certain planes, feel free to ask. Thoughts on best optimization of engines/factories is welcome too, but this is more about the types of planes I should be going for. I have also attached a file you can download. I don't mind making updates to create some sort of general, easy to understand kind of best practice, but simplified R&D development paths.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Anachro -- 12/24/2018 12:03:25 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/12/2017 7:16:54 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

First off, Anachro, I really like the flowchart method for displaying data. Very easy on the eye.

Only minor quibbles. The Ki-44-IIb is a poorly optimized airframe. I'd spend the effort to go for the Ki-44-IIc as quickly as possible.

I also upgrade the research on the Tony and Oscar lines as the war progresses. The former helps your research towards the Ki-100-II and the latter provides a long-range serviceable escort fighter that can also double as kamikaze (Oscar IIa and IIb with 2x250kg bombs).

Were you thinking of producing a 'kamikaze' category in your list or do you subscribe to the 'everything that's left over=kamikaze' line of thinking?

_____________________________

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 2

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/12/2017 7:23:40 PM

bartrat

Posts: 131
Joined: 12/24/2013
From: USA
Status: offline

What software did you use to produce that flowchart?

_____________________________

WW2 logistics fanboy and
Rat Rancher
Rat ranching for fun and profit, had better be fun, cause there is no profit.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 3

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/12/2017 7:49:28 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Your NF are horrible.

You need Nicks. Randy and Denko are over-valued especially the Denko.

No Tabby? Emily L?

No Frank R? No Jacks or George? I don't think you will make it to the endgame unless there are 20+ factories on the Sam. Never replace Franks with Tonies...and probably never replace Frank R with B models. Maybe a very little for dedicated deep defense.

You need one late gen fighter like ki94II, some like the Ki83, Shinden.

Myojo is fluff. But fun.

Grace? Best navy strike plane.

Fighter Bombers?

(in reply to bartrat)

Post #: 4

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/12/2017 7:50:48 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

PDU:On or off is the key question for any Japanese air-production plan.

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 5

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/12/2017 9:03:25 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

PDU:On or off is the key question for any Japanese air-production plan.

Has to be pdu on, but I guess you are wise not to assume.

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 6

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/12/2017 10:50:12 PM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

Lots of unanswered questions... Like..

- What scenario?
- What game settings (PDU? Reinforcements? Withdrawals?)
- Intended style of play?
- What house rules? (Allow r&d skips? 4E/night bombing rules? Resizing rules? )

Without the above, it's hard to answer.

Assuming Scen 1, there's a lot I'd change. As an example, there is no compelling stat to argue for replacing Ki-21's with Ki-49-Ia. The -IIa is a different story of course, but the -Ia offers nothing other than an engine switch.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 7

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 12:10:32 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

Lots of good stuff above. Assuming PDU=on.

Keep in mind this is a very complex undertaking and players have many different opinions. Play preferences also come into the mix here as well.

Navy night fighter. Get rid of Denko. Switch in Myrt instead.

Emily is better than Mavis.

Frank a&b are not in the same development path, although you would think they should be. So its Frank-a to Frank-r, or Frank-b to Frank-r. 'b' comes in much later so its the more difficult path than 'a'.

Others have said most of the rest above.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 8

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 2:40:53 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

You have a start. you have a plan. you need to play a lot of games to find out what works for you and what doesn't. You have a few holes and you have some duplicates, but again, these are things you learn as you play. Enjoy the game. After about 4 games to '45 you will have a much better idea what you want and when.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 9

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 2:49:55 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

After about 4 games to '45

I should live so long.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 10

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 3:58:01 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Well, against the AI. And of course, it helps to have some mid-war scenarios saved. and then Armageddon is a must ... play that 6 times or so and a LOT of things become real clear.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 11

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 6:11:27 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

I find the Ki-43 quite effective in my PBEMs - Ki-43IIb with armor is still good in sweeps and CAPs. And can be used as a fighter bomber or kamikaze later. I do not have experiences about IIIa/IV though, so I cannot really tell, but I hope them to support a mix of Tojos, Tonys and Franks.
Ki-44IIc is probably the best of Tojo line, so go for it to "support" your SR3 Franks by SR1 climber.
You missed the N1K and J2M lines for navy fighters.
H8K is also good. Better stats, and loading capacity than H6K :D You may find that useful.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 12

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 2:12:47 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Be aware of the two big fighter events for Japan:

April of 1944 is the huge IJAAF Fighter expansion

June of 1944 is the huge IJNAF fighter withdraw

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 13

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 3:41:49 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

Lots of unanswered questions... Like..

- What scenario?
- What game settings (PDU? Reinforcements? Withdrawals?)
- Intended style of play?
- What house rules? (Allow r&d skips? 4E/night bombing rules? Resizing rules? )

Without the above, it's hard to answer.

Assuming Scen 1, there's a lot I'd change. As an example, there is no compelling stat to argue for replacing Ki-21's with Ki-49-Ia. The -IIa is a different story of course, but the -Ia offers nothing other than an engine switch.

In October 1942, the Helen 1as get MAD, really MAD. It may be worth keeping one our two groups of Helen 1as for the duration of the war as ASW platforms. Otherwise, I agree with Infinitemonkey, there is really no reason to change over more than one or two airgroups to Helens until the IIa.

Also, Lilly should not be completely discarded. The IIb is a dive bomber and the only anti-ship asset that the IJA has. Also, if you intend to have some on-the-job training for bomber pilots: i.e. bombing some insignificant targets in China with exp. 50 pilots to built their experience, I would keep one of the one-engine bombers, probably Anns, to use for this purpose, because it uses less supply. The Anns are also good ASW weapons that are easier on supply to fly ASW patrols every day.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 14

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 4:00:26 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Hello all,

I thank you very much for the good input from everyone. Every time I approach this game, I come away amazed because there is just so much versatility, especially on the Japanese side in terms of plane/ship production. First, I'd like to get a few things out of the way regarding both the scenario and my philosophy (which I stupidly neglected to talk about in my first post).

Scenario: DBB-C
Settings: PDU on, reinforcements +/- 15 days, withdrawals on
Style of Play: Already mentioned, but while I am moving aggressively in '42 to keep him from developing some bases too early (which I will not develop), I plan to retrench by '43 to inner defenses and attempt to make a tough nut to crack going into '45. I would love to see '46 but I seriously doubt I will make it, but who knows.

For a detailed (albeit RP'd and therefore a bit obscured) explanation, you can look at THIS POST in my defunct AAR. Essentially, what I am going for is appropriate planes to do the job while trying to be as efficient as possible in terms of the type of engines I am using. Please feel free to criticize this policy, as perhaps I'm not understanding game mechanics correctly, but I am essentially trying to get the most planes for least amount of engines needing R&D in order to unlock synergies that there may be. This guides my selection process and might be why I use some models that aren't "the best."

Please see the breakdown of my engine usage here:

In my next post, I will attempt to address and also take advice from the individual postings above. Also, @bartrat the only two programs I'm using are Excel and Powerpoint (for flowcharts). I will attempt to update them as this thread develops and when I have time.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 7/13/2017 4:03:23 PM >

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 15

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/13/2017 6:05:02 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

You seem to have the right idea. R&D in WiTP is not so much true R&D as future production plans. For example, on only a few models, if at all, do you want to assign more factories to R&D than you intend to place into production eventually. So, for example, if you intend to produce 420 Franks per month, this would amount to 14 size 30 factories (or 13 size 30 and 1 size 60, since you start the game with a size 55 factory). Apply this thinking to all your airframes, and you have the basics of an R&D plan.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 7/13/2017 6:06:09 PM >

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 16

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 2:38:00 AM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
In October 1942, the Helen 1as get MAD, really MAD. It may be worth keeping one our two groups of Helen 1as for the duration of the war as ASW platforms. Otherwise, I agree with Infinitemonkey, there is really no reason to change over more than one or two airgroups to Helens until the IIa.

Also, Lilly should not be completely discarded. The IIb is a dive bomber and the only anti-ship asset that the IJA has. Also, if you intend to have some on-the-job training for bomber pilots: i.e. bombing some insignificant targets in China with exp. 50 pilots to built their experience, I would keep one of the one-engine bombers, probably Anns, to use for this purpose, because it uses less supply. The Anns are also good ASW weapons that are easier on supply to fly ASW patrols every day.

1. The MAD device does not activate in 10/1942, it activates in 6/1944. See http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3592865&mpage=1&key=�
2. IIRC, only three Japanese aircraft get the MAD: the E13A1 Jake, the Ki-49-Ia, and the B5N2 Kate. Using the same logic you apply with using Ann's for asw, you should use the Jakes or Kates.
3. Part of why I mention resizing house rules as affecting your decisions is this topic, since resizing float plane groups and equipping them with E13A1's gives you MAD on a single engine aircraft with minimal impact to your available LBA air groups. The range is the same for ASW since range on ASW is cut in half and fractions round down. The 9/11 range on the Helen is the same as the Jake's 8/10 for ASW since both reduce to 4/5.
4. The IJA gets the Ki-67-Ia (T), which is an anti-ship platform late war, and I would argue that the Ki-45-KAIa Nick is a better anti shipping weapon than the Ki-48 DB versions. Aside from range, the Nick is superior. The Nick's center line 20mm will make up for reduced accuracy from not dive bombing. Both aircraft are for use against lighter targets anyway: the Nick only carries the 250kg bombs, but the Lily is worse with only 100 kg bombs.
5. Bombing targets is reported to be inefficient for gaining exp, but flying CAP is not... The Ki-45's can fly CAP in back areas to gain Exp.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 17

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 3:23:02 AM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

1. The MAD device does not activate in 10/1942, it activates in 6/1944.

In DBB, the MAD activates in 10/42.

quote:

2. IIRC, only three Japanese aircraft get the MAD: the E13A1 Jake, the Ki-49-Ia, and the B5N2 Kate. Using the same logic you apply with using Ann's for asw, you should use the Jakes or Kates.

What about the Lorna? I mention the Helen because it is army, and the army has a surfeit of bomber groups by late 1942. Also, if the desire is to sink or badly damage a sub, the Jake does not carry a payload sufficient to sink a sub. Again, I mention it only as something to consider. I like to use IJA assets for ASW. I like to commit all my available floatplanes to naval search.

quote:

4. The IJA gets the Ki-67-Ia (T), which is an anti-ship platform late war, and I would argue that the Ki-45-KAIa Nick is a better anti shipping weapon than the Ki-48 DB versions. Aside from range, the Nick is superior. The Nick's center line 20mm will make up for reduced accuracy from not dive bombing. Both aircraft are for use against lighter targets anyway: the Nick only carries the 250kg bombs, but the Lily is worse with only 100 kg bombs.

The Peggy is a torpedo bomber, so a different role, and becomes availabe much after the Lilly IIb. You can use Nicks for a variety of anti-ship roles, but I would rather have the DBs against amphibious groups and the like. Then again, I am a PDU:off player, so I use a variety of aircraft that PDU:On players probably do not use. Again, it is something to consider. There is a place, IMO, for the Lilly DB.

quote:

5. Bombing targets is reported to be inefficient for gaining exp, but flying CAP is not... The Ki-45's can fly CAP in back areas to gain Exp.

Bombing targets is inefficient and uses too much supply to gain xp. CAP is much better.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 7/14/2017 3:27:33 AM >

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 18

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 3:53:15 AM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

1. The MAD device does not activate in 10/1942, it activates in 6/1944.

In DBB, the MAD activates in 10/42.

I just checked the scenario editor for scenario 28 (DBB-C?).

Device ID 1855 is the Allied MAD device and it activates on 10/1/1942.
Device ID 1919 is the Japanese MAD device and it activates on 6/1/1944.

Each of the planes I mentioned, the E13A1, the B5N2 and the Ki-49-Ia all use device ID 1919.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 19

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 4:04:27 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

The MAD device gives some sort of bonus, exactly what "5" means is in the code and we can only guess. From my testing, I cannot tell the difference* so I attach no priority to it.

* doesn't mean it doesn't do anything, just means that other variables (like random rolls) for me just overwhelm whatever bonus the MAD device provides.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 20

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 4:11:29 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

The Peggy is a torpedo bomber, so a different role, and becomes availabe much after the Lilly IIb. You can use Nicks for a variety of anti-ship roles, but I would rather have the DBs against amphibious groups and the like. Then again, I am a PDU:off player, so I use a variety of aircraft that PDU:On players probably do not use. Again, it is something to consider. There is a place, IMO, for the Lilly DB.

Some players like the Lilly. For me, it is simply not cost effective. IJN DB's are half the cost, and I easily have 3 or 4 groups on the beach*. More, the IJN DB's are already in production, so I don't need another production line.

That's just me though and I play PDU ON only.

* I always lose a Junyo or two, they are so thin skinned. And then of course a Zuiho as well ... anyway, I always have a few IJN groups beached.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 21

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 4:29:09 AM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

2. IIRC, only three Japanese aircraft get the MAD: the E13A1 Jake, the Ki-49-Ia, and the B5N2 Kate. Using the same logic you apply with using Ann's for asw, you should use the Jakes or Kates.

What about the Lorna? I mention the Helen because it is army, and the army has a surfeit of bomber groups by late 1942. Also, if the desire is to sink or badly damage a sub, the Jake does not carry a payload sufficient to sink a sub. Again, I mention it only as something to consider. I like to use IJA assets for ASW. I like to commit all my available float planes to naval search.

1. I kind of equate building the Lorna to putting tits on a bull - a two engine aircraft that has a 2/3 range for ASW and requires an IJN level bomber air group to use? I'd rather use the air group for Naval Attack.
2. For me, the issue is one of utilization of air groups. With PDU:on as is the case in the OP's game, I'd reserve the IJA LBA for other purposes and use the float planes, BUT...
3. This answer also depends upon house rules for resizing. If no limits are placed upon resizing, you can free up a lot of float planes by upgrading C5M2 Babs air groups to D4Y1-C Judy starting in late 1942. Resizing them on carriers and splitting them up adds a LOT of Nav search capability. With drop tanks, range is 17/21 hexes so your float plane more limited range is better utilized in ASW. In that environment, I don't want my Jake's as much for Nav Search by late 1942.

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 22

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 4:41:20 AM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

4. The IJA gets the Ki-67-Ia (T), which is an anti-ship platform late war, and I would argue that the Ki-45-KAIa Nick is a better anti shipping weapon than the Ki-48 DB versions. Aside from range, the Nick is superior. The Nick's center line 20mm will make up for reduced accuracy from not dive bombing. Both aircraft are for use against lighter targets anyway: the Nick only carries the 250kg bombs, but the Lily is worse with only 100 kg bombs.

The Peggy is a torpedo bomber, so a different role, and becomes availabe much after the Lilly IIb. You can use Nicks for a variety of anti-ship roles, but I would rather have the DBs against amphibious groups and the like. Then again, I am a PDU:off player, so I use a variety of aircraft that PDU:On players probably do not use. Again, it is something to consider. There is a place, IMO, for the Lilly DB.

1. My answers all depend upon PDU:On since the answers are to his question. I'm not saying the Lily is useless - I'm saying that with PDU:On it's advantages are few enough that I would prune my production tree of it. With PDU:On, I see the end goal to be minimizing/focusing air frames and research. I see the Ki-45 KAIa as a much better choice.
2. Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy is a Level bomber (Type = 04 - Level Bomber) and with PDU:On units flying Ki-21/30/32/48/51 etc can all upgrade to it. It is not a TB (Type = 12 Torpedo Bomber). It can carry a Torpedo, but it is not a TB. It is, however, an "anti-ship asset".

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 23

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 4:57:37 AM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

5. Bombing targets is reported to be inefficient for gaining exp, but flying CAP is not... The Ki-45's can fly CAP in back areas to gain Exp.

Bombing targets is inefficient and uses too much supply to gain xp. CAP is much better.

Beyond the supply consumed by the bombing itself, what I mean is that the time required to raise Exp from say 50 to 60 is reported to be longer using bombing (e.g. Ground Attack on an isolated/undefended base or LCU) than it is with CAP.

Back in the old days of WitP (pre-AE), pilots could be trained to very high Exp levels by repeated bombing missions against an empty base. Players argued to slow down exp advancement from bombing missions because of that. I think the model imposes a penalty on bombing with respect to Exp gain. My impression from limited testing is that bombing missions do not raise Exp at the same rate as CAP in WitP:AE and I have seen posts that suggest the same.

I have not, however, done much testing. I think the evidence is a little better than anecdotal, but not by much. My point here was therefore that the Ki-45 (Fighter Bomber) could fly CAP missions where the Ki-48 (Dive Bomber) can not. (And therefore Ki-45 might be faster to train for pilots with Exp > 50).

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 24

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 11:25:21 AM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Just to chime in. As a test, I bombed several enemy bases with enemy AA units in them, and ALL my bombs missed each time. However, many bombers got raises in GroundBomb skill, probably due to taking AA fire. Go figure.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 25

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 12:10:09 PM

sanderz

Posts: 862
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
It can carry a Torpedo, but it is not a TB. It is, however, an "anti-ship asset".

Is there any difference in performance - i.e. is the TB intrinsically better at torpedo bombing (given same pilot exp etc) than an "anti-ship asset"?

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 26

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 1:50:51 PM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
It can carry a Torpedo, but it is not a TB. It is, however, an "anti-ship asset".

Is there any difference in performance - i.e. is the TB intrinsically better at torpedo bombing (given same pilot exp etc) than an "anti-ship asset"?

I do not know. However, given the volume and frequency of AFB complaints about the effectiveness of Netty aircraft (which are also Level Bombers - not Torpedo Bombers), my guess is that they are equally effective and that no special coding exists for Level Bomber vs Torpedo Bomber with respect to hit probability. IJA Peggy's are likely to be more effective at torpedo attacks than Netty's because of their higher speed, durability, and armor.

(in reply to sanderz)

Post #: 27

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 4:04:01 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

The problem with Peggy T is training the pilots up.

Japan needs: Frank A & R; Jack or George; Sam. You can really stop at the A6M3a till you get Sam. A late war fighter like the Ki94, Ki83, Shinden.

Depending upon HR, you need a robust night fighter program but you don't need to allocate many r&d facilities to them. 2 on Irving, 1 Nick, 1 Dinah, 2 Frances maybe one on Peggy.

Frank and Sam are the most important planes, by far. Jack or George next most important. Somewhere down the line is the Judy and Grace.

By all means build and play with all the planes you want to, but r&d the above.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 28

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/14/2017 4:14:00 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

I just checked the scenario editor for scenario 28 (DBB-C?).

Device ID 1855 is the Allied MAD device and it activates on 10/1/1942.
Device ID 1919 is the Japanese MAD device and it activates on 6/1/1944.

Each of the planes I mentioned, the E13A1, the B5N2 and the Ki-49-Ia all use device ID 1919.

Hey thanks for clarifying that InfiniteMonkey before I started building a squadron of Helen Ias in my DBB game. It's nice when someone checks the editor for me to prevent me from making a mistake.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 29

RE: Japanese Air Production Plans - No AcePylut! - 7/18/2017 10:16:53 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

You can really stop at the A6M3a till you get Sam.

I started thinking about this last night and I have to say I totally disagree. Up until the A6M5 one of the things wrong with the Zero is its frail construction. Not that the M5 is great but going to a durability of 27 from 22 is something. In addition its the fastest of all the Zeros'. Then the model after that that I want is the M5c. Its my fleet defender. With armor and a gun rating of 17 its my choice for CAP. So my CV fleet air arm will be populated with a mix of these two 'Top Guns'.

After that its the Sam, but by that time there probably won't be much of a CV fleet to go around. By the time the Sam gets into play it'll probably be no more than a nice LBA machine. Of course the above is just my .02. YMMV

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Japanese Air Production Plans - No Andydb!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>