Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ?

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 >> Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/6/2021 5:06:27 AM

Oddball67

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/13/2020
Status: offline

Thanks for all the discussion.
Can anyone confirm me something : is it necessary to research a previous plane before researching the next one ?

Imagine i don't want to produce any ki-61, but want the ki-100 later on, is it more interesting to research directly the ki-100, or the first ki-61 and all the next ones ? seeing the number of different ki-61, i would say directly the ki-100?

Imagine i don't want to produce any B6N1 Jill (specific engine), but want the B6N2 Jill later on, is it more interesting to research directly the B6N2 Jill, or the B6N1 and then the B6N2 ? because of the engine bonus, i would say directly the B6N2 Jill ? But i fear i could be blocked by the fact there are only 5 monthes between the 2 models ?

Imagine i don't want to produce any J2M2 Jack (same arrival date as N1K1-J George), but want the J2M3 Jack later on, is it more interesting to research directly the J2M3, or the J2M2 and then the J2M3 ? No idea here

Imagine i don't want to produce any P1Y1 Frances (bad service rating), but want the P1Y2 Frances later on, is it more interesting to research directly the P1Y2 , or the P1Y1 and then the P1Y2 ? No idea here again

thanks in advance, i'm only starting to try to understand the japanese R&D

Post #: 1

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/6/2021 7:16:20 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

Depending on your game setting (PDU, realistic R&D, which can limit your choices), you can set a factory to research a future aircraft instead of an earlier one.

However, the repair rate of an R&D factory depends on the time to arrival. It�ll usually finish repairing in roughly two-thirds of that time, so you might be better off start the factories on an earlier model (if it�s in the defined upgrade path) and change the factory to the further model once fully repaired. A bit abusive IMHO, but JFB will probably have another opinion.

(in reply to Oddball67)

Post #: 2

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/7/2021 10:11:57 PM

rustysi

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

quote:

A bit abusive IMHO, but JFB will probably have another opinion.

You know you always seem to have this assumption. It would be nice if you would just state 'A bit abusive IMHO', and leave it at that.

BTW, I am a JFB, and I consider the tactic as more than 'A bit abusive'. And as I've stated before, I will never use it.

_____________________________

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 Ambassador)

Post #: 3

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/8/2021 5:39:18 AM

Ambassador

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

A bit abusive IMHO, but JFB will probably have another opinion.

You know you always seem to have this assumption. It would be nice if you would just state 'A bit abusive IMHO', and leave it at that.

BTW, I am a JFB, and I consider the tactic as more than 'A bit abusive'. And as I've stated before, I will never use it.

You�re not the only JFB out there.

The last discussion on this showed a lot of others found this normal, as ��the game engine allows it�� and took umbrage when I stated clearly that MY opinion is it�s an abuse of the system.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 4

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/8/2021 10:51:32 AM

Wuffer

Posts: 402
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline

Probably it's unwise even to comment on this topic, but as long as both parties fully understand and agree this should be an absolute non-issue? For me, it's just an additional option like scenario 2 or "unrealistic research", PDU, etc. (and even more in the realm of the possible as the other settings). There's no hidden Focke-Wulf, only slightly less obsolete crap. So why not?
It was never patched out, so its obviously a design decision for me, but not worth an argument.
In the last century it was common to give the weaker player in chess a advantage of a pawn or even an officer.

Tolerate and have fun with this outstanding piece of art. Live and let live and respect other opinions.
Oh, and it's not a simulation, can't be no matter what some want to believe, but an abstraction. :-)

But a very unique one!

< Message edited by Wuffer -- 2/8/2021 10:55:17 AM >

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 5

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/8/2021 10:52:21 AM

AtParmentier

Posts: 64
Joined: 12/15/2019
Status: offline

As Ambassador said it depends on the game settings and house rules.

If Player Defined Upgrades are on you can choose which plane models are used in a squadron (keeping within the type of plane). This allows to minimise the amount of models used and thus needed to be produced.
If Realistic R&D is off you can switch between production and research. If it's on you can only change Research factories to models that have not arrived yet, Production factories can only be changed to other models that have arrived.

With PDU on, you can pick and choose which models you research and can skip models of squadrons as you can select the models the squadron will use. In this case you can select the planes you want to research.
As stated above me depending on peoples taste and House Rules you might or might not be allowed to use the mechanics to get models earlier than if you selected the model directly.
To get them earlier you have to understand the upgrade paths of models. Going along an upgrade path does not damage our repaired factories. Thus allowing you to select the earliest plane in the path towards your wanted plane, setting the size of the R&D facility to level 30 on the earliest plane. After the facility has repaired the 30 levels, you can go to the plane you want via the path.
Example: you want the Ki-100.
First set the facilities you want on it to the Ki-61-Ia. When a facility is repaired to level 30, you switch it to the Ki-61-Ib, then switch the Ki-61-Ib you just switched to the Ki-61-Id, then the Ki-61-Id to the Ki-61-II, then Ki-61-II to Ki-100-I. Can then switch Ki-100-I to Ki-100-II.

If realistic R&D is off you can select a plane that is currently available and on the path to get the facilities repaired quickly (huge drain on supply though), once the facilities are fully repaired to level 30, you can switch them over to the next plane on the path. Using this method you can get planes much earlier, because the repair speed is much quicker. Drawbacks are the extreme supply drain (30 repairs in about 30 days vs 30 repairs in 4 months or 2 years). This version is gamey in my opinion, I'd rather not use it, but will if needed. In principle you can get size 30 RD facilities on the Ki-43-IV by Jan 8 (with 5 facilities this is going to cost 150 000 Supply).

If this is allowed depends on House Rules if PDU is on.

< Message edited by AtParmentier -- 2/8/2021 11:19:59 AM >

(in reply to Oddball67)

Post #: 6

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/8/2021 1:44:10 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

...It was never patched out, so its obviously a design decision ...

The usual non sequitur trotted out again.

1. Patches are not meant to alter a basic game design.

2. Patches are meant to correct bugs which prevent a game element from operating as designed.

3. Patches which attempt to correct a before release unforeseen loophole, almost invariably will break something in the game. A huge amount of testing (measured in labour and time) is required to minimise the odds of breaking something else. It is very rare that a patch release schedule allows for the necessary resources and effort to be put in.

4. Marketing decisions come into play. Game devs do not have complete control over their design. It is not uncommon for a design loophole to be discovered but not closed because too many beneficiaries of the loophole will complain loudly. This leads to dev frustration at not being allowed to fix the issue.

So no, just because something is not "fixed" in patches, it doesn't mean that the game devs are pleased that the flaw remains. All it really means is that other issues, which could be addressed with the available resources, had a higher priority.

Alfred

(in reply to Wuffer)

Post #: 7

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/8/2021 4:16:21 PM

ITAKLinus

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

A bit abusive IMHO, but JFB will probably have another opinion.

You know you always seem to have this assumption. It would be nice if you would just state 'A bit abusive IMHO', and leave it at that.

BTW, I am a JFB, and I consider the tactic as more than 'A bit abusive'. And as I've stated before, I will never use it.

You�re not the only JFB out there. The last discussion on this showed a lot of others found this normal, as ��the game engine allows it�� and took umbrage when I stated clearly that MY opinion is it�s an abuse of the system.

I confess I have some mixed feelings regarding this. There are some planes, such as the Tony, which would never be researched if we would have to do the R&D for all the mid-models.

Everyone would simply do the math and optimize going big for Tojo or Oscar.

Individually, I found many tradeoffs in the entire "skip the models" concept. Let's take the Oscar. In order to keep the initial factory, you have to research the models between the -Ic and the -IV. Therefore you have a tradeoff:
A) You throw away the supplies invested in expanding the initial factory and you change its production
B) You keep the initial factory turned-off until the intermediary models come online
C) You R&D every model and it will take a while before you arrive to the final one, keeping the initial factory in the meanwhile.

Moreover, if you consider planes which arrive later and for which there are no "initial factories", for example the Tojo, you have that the tradeoffs still stand: you might be hard-pressed to put the Tojo-IIa (or whatever other plane you have put in R&D) online due to operational reasons.
This is especially valid if you consider planes such as the Judy. Individually, I am a great fan of the Judy-IV, but if I want it ASAP I know there are tradeoffs (such as keeping the crappy Vals for few more months).

I would also add that the main delaying factor with R&D is the time taken by factories to repair, rather than the actual research. Take the George. Once I have repaired the factories, it doesn't really change whether I do research the second version or I go straight to the third and final one. The great challenge is to repair the R&D factories and it's where most of the waiting time is spent.

The big big big names in late-war Japanese R&D do not really have any of these issues:
A) Frank-R: it has only the Frank-A as previous model and so the "problem" doesn't happen to exist
B) Jack/George: there is only one intermediary model. Not a big deal even if you have to research it.
C) Various bombers: I never research them other than the Peggy(T) so I cannot really tell

Individually, and that's just my perspective (!), I think that I would find the entire system somewhat broken if you could change the production factories skipping models. Since you cannot, I find the entire system ok-ish.

I mean, in the end it's quite more "broken" the fact that I have accelerated the KI-94-II to Sept/Oct-1944 rather than producing earlier some cr@ppy A6M8s.

< Message edited by ITAKLinus -- 2/8/2021 4:17:26 PM >

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Ambassador)

Post #: 8

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 12:27:56 AM

offenseman

Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline

Because of the Ha-60 engine, you will likely not want to build enough to get the engine bonus so unless you choose to invest heavily in the Ha-60 you might be better off researching the 100 directly and getting the engine bonus for the Ki100. Granted you will not be able to use the engine bonus as fast because the 100 factories won't be repaired as quickly but I think you'd gain a lot of ground because of said bonus after your first factory set was fully repaired. More so than running through the entire Ki61 tree.

_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to Oddball67)

Post #: 9

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 12:37:14 AM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman

Because of the Ha-60 engine, you will likely not want to build enough to get the engine bonus so unless you choose to invest heavily in the Ha-60 you might be better off researching the 100 directly and getting the engine bonus for the Ki100. Granted you will not be able to use the engine bonus as fast because the 100 factories won't be repaired as quickly but I think you'd gain a lot of ground because of said bonus after your first factory set was fully repaired. More so than running through the entire Ki61 tree.

Somebody competent enough and in a high enough position might say (although in Japanese!) "The Germans are having problems building this fine engine and we are trying not to just copy it but to modify it. We have very limited knowledge of such large, liquid cooled engines, so let us just skip those engines but design an air frame that will either use an existing radial engine or one that we are already researching."

So no inline engines for the Judies nor the Tonies.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to offenseman)

Post #: 10

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 1:47:10 AM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
There are some planes, such as the Tony, which would never be researched if we would have to do the R&D for all the mid-models.

Absolutely not accurate. Play a PDU off game and then tell me you didn't allocate r&d to the Tony Line.

As I understand it, PDU ON was a sop to the players, and the developers leaned heavily towards favoring the PDU off game.

Additionally, there are some effective Tony models prior to the Ki100I and II worth researching even in a PDU On game. Depends upon your playstyle and your opponents.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/10/2021 1:51:37 AM >

(in reply to ITAKLinus)

Post #: 11

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 9:26:11 AM

ITAKLinus

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
There are some planes, such as the Tony, which would never be researched if we would have to do the R&D for all the mid-models.

Absolutely not accurate. Play a PDU off game and then tell me you didn't allocate r&d to the Tony Line.

As I understand it, PDU ON was a sop to the players, and the developers leaned heavily towards favoring the PDU off game.

Additionally, there are some effective Tony models prior to the Ki100I and II worth researching even in a PDU On game. Depends upon your playstyle and your opponents.

I'm talking of PDU=on games. In PDU=on you are forced to produced basically everything or you end up with some groups with blocked upgrade paths.

It's quite unlikely that you are willing to invest so massively on the Tony in a PDU=on game where you have to research every intermediary model of it. Especially if you consider that you have valid alternatives: Oscar-IV arrives much much earlier and same goes with Tojo-IIc.

At this regard. I've never ever played a PDU=off / realisticR&D=on game but I might play one soon. I checked the manual to see whether my memory was serving me well and I obviously came out plenty of doubts.

Questions:
A) with RealisticR&D can you switch factories from R&D to production of the model you are researching? It seems quite obvious to me, but I don't want to screw up.
Quote from the manual:
This switch controls whether the Japanese player can convert the production of factories which are producing currently available aircraft into ones researching future aircraft, and vice versa.
If the switch is set to the �on� position, and the Japanese player wishes to change the aircraft type being produced by a factory, the choice of aircraft to convert to will be restricted in the following manner: When switching from an aircraft that is currently available and in production, only other aircraft that are also in production can be selected. Similarly, when that the Japanese player wishes to change the aircraft type of a factory that is performing research (see section 13.5), only other aircraft that are also being researched (that is � not yet available for production) can be selected.
This represents the differences between mass production factories and research and development centers. In reality these are two different things, and freely swapping between them is not realistic.
If the switch is set to the �off� position, no such restrictions apply. This will allow the Japanese player a greater ability to switch production of their factories to any aircraft type, regardless of whether those factories are representing aircraft production or R&D facilities.
The default position for this switch is �on�, as this is a more realistic representation of the Japanese aircraft industry.

I understand the "When switching from an aircraft that is currently available and in production, only other aircraft that are also in production can be selected." in the way that "in production" is to be intended "available for production" and not that are actually being produced by some other factory. However, I am kinda puzzled because the literal meaning of the sentence looks like another to me: probably it's my English that is not serving me well, but I want to ask.

Bottom line is: I R&D, say, the Tojo-IIa. It gets a couple of months acceleration. Can I then switch those factories to production? It is quite logic it should, but, again, the manual made me think.

B) Can I skip models in the R&D? Should be possible, but, again, I want to be sure. With the aforementioned Tojo-IIa example, say I want to directly go for the Tojo-IIc once my factories are reparied, can I as with RealisticR&D=off? Provided of course I manually select each intermediary model.

In years and years I think I've never switched production factories to R&D and vice-versa, so probably I've already played as if I had RealisticR&D=on.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 12

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 10:20:27 AM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus
Questions

A) Realistic R&D = inability to switch production factories to research. Non-realistic = ability. Nothing more, nothing less

B) Switching factories along the model chain w/o the loss of repairs is always possible, regardless of anything else

(in reply to ITAKLinus)

Post #: 13

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 11:54:09 AM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

It's quite unlikely that you are willing to invest so massively on the Tony in a PDU=on game where you have to research every intermediary model of it. Especially if you consider that you have valid alternatives: Oscar-IV arrives much much earlier and same goes with Tojo-IIc.

The Tojo IIc and Oscar IV serve different roles than the Tony.

Are you researching all the intermediary planes in the Tojo and Oscar line?

Often times in my games my investment in Tony is greater than Oscar or Tojo but never Frank.

(in reply to ITAKLinus)

Post #: 14

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 12:09:07 PM

ITAKLinus

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

It's quite unlikely that you are willing to invest so massively on the Tony in a PDU=on game where you have to research every intermediary model of it. Especially if you consider that you have valid alternatives: Oscar-IV arrives much much earlier and same goes with Tojo-IIc.

The Tojo IIc and Oscar IV serve different roles than the Tony.

Are you researching all the intermediary planes in the Tojo and Oscar line?

Often times in my games my investment in Tony is greater than Oscar or Tojo but never Frank.

I generally research all the intermediary Oscars in order to preserve the initial big factory in production. It's not a big deal, there aren't many of them in any case. If the game requires better planes, I might produce the Oscar-IIb as interim solution between Oscar-Ic and Oscar-IV.
In line of principle I could produce them all, but I prefer not to have too many different models around.

Tojo is a different beast. It really depends on the game. In my last game I have done R&D for each intermediary model because I wanted to test massed Tojo-IIb against 4Es and as a stop-gap night fighter. It went badly.
Still, I am not a huge fan of tojos because they rapidly fall out of usefulness once you are on the defensive. In low-layered CAPs, tojos aren't really good performers. At least not as much as Oscars.

Given that there isn't much difference between Tojo-IIa and Tojo-IIc and that there is only one intermediary model, it's not a big deal to research them all.

My core set up is generally: Oscar (all the line) + George + Frank-R. These are the models I produce in massive numbers. Naturally, they're not the only fighters I do produce and use.

Oscar, I research them all. I produce -I, sometimes -IIb and -IV
George: I research the final model only. I produce the final model only.
Frank-R: I research the -R model only, but it's not a big deal if I would have to research the -A as well. I produce the -R only.

I never produce/research Jack and Tony. Been there, done that, but I simply find them sub-optimal.

EDIT: we should also define what we do mean in terms of "big investment" and so on. For someone, 5 factories on the Frank are a big investment. For me, lestt than 10 is nothing. Just to make an example.

< Message edited by ITAKLinus -- 2/10/2021 12:11:12 PM >

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 15

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 2:49:16 PM

Lowpe

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

Jack is sub optimal too?

(in reply to ITAKLinus)

Post #: 16

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/10/2021 2:53:49 PM

ITAKLinus

Posts: 630
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Jack is sub optimal too?

I prefer the George, therefore I don't use much the Jack.

I suppose it's up to players' preferences. I find the George a better and more useful plane overall.

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 17

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/11/2021 10:59:25 PM

offenseman

Posts: 768
Joined: 2/24/2007
From: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
Status: offline

err I failed to quote RangerJoe but....

Yep pretty much what I am saying. :)

< Message edited by offenseman -- 2/11/2021 11:01:40 PM >

_____________________________

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 18

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/12/2021 8:33:28 PM

Wuffer

Posts: 402
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

...It was never patched out, so its obviously a design decision ...

The usual non sequitur trotted out again.

(...) Patches which attempt to correct a before release unforeseen loophole, almost invariably will break something in the game. A huge amount of testing (measured in labour and time) is required to minimise the odds of breaking something else. It is very rare that a patch release schedule allows for the necessary resources and effort to be put in.

4. Marketing decisions come into play. Game devs do not have complete control over their design. It is not uncommon for a design loophole to be discovered but not closed because too many beneficiaries of the loophole will complain loudly. This leads to dev frustration at not being allowed to fix the issue.

So no, just because something is not "fixed" in patches, it doesn't mean that the game devs are pleased that the flaw remains. All it really means is that other issues, which could be addressed with the available resources, had a higher priority.

Alfred

Yes, 'obviously' was obviously (sic) a very poor expression, which could only partly excused by semantics and dubious dictionary entries as I not only contradicted my other statements but also put in some unwanted provocative meaning. What I really meant was more in the vague sense of 'One could argue that...'
Mea culpa. Ok?

At least your answer enlightens me a bit: I admit that it never really occurred to me that this issue could be indeed some kind of illegitimate bastard child from the 'unrealistic' R&D approach. This is a very valid argument which I could follow.

Probably it's not wise to continue, :-) but on the other side - leaving aside all the out-of-game RL explanations - we found the anomaly of Frank B, which is no part of any research family and couldn't therefore be accelerated by wire chain hopping. The 2 x 20mm CL of the Ki-100 could shot down 4-mot's, true, but the 4 x 20 mm of the Frank B will bring them down regarding the love of the game for multiple weapons.
So, one might argue that at some point a little correction for balance has been done?

I will leave it here, in dubio. It is what it is, and should be really no issue between honorable opponents nowadays if communicated as said before.

It's only a pity that's a lot of serious players had found themselves badly surprised! It really must have been a slap in the face for all of the (ladies? and) g'men, who have painfully waited years IRL for their fighters... And believe me, I really feel with all of you. Even worse, their lifetime experience of a great defense against all odds suddenly demolished.

So, in the end it's becoming unfortunately and inevitable quite emotional.

Like a dedicated flyfisherman, sitting happily at the river bank of his favourite swim after a wonderful, but not that successful early morning session when some **** came around and pulling out a wonderful trout on a longline which he has dropped last evening. With a rotten worm as bait.
As we know the trout is a greedy predator. And only a handicap, like the art of flyfishing, could save her from extinction when she is under some fishing pressure and preserve her stock for all, anglers as otters.

So, have fun please.
But communicate. No bad surprises.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 19

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/12/2021 9:55:04 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Jack is sub optimal too?

I have a theory not proven in combat so far, that the 2nd Jack might be the best CAP plane Japan gets in a reasonable timeframe.

Speed is only ok, but weapons 4x20 (2 of them not very acurate tho) plus good climb plus decent manouvre plus SR2. George 2 has lower climb so might be not as good (on CAP!)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 20

RE: Help - Jap plane R&D sequence ? - 2/13/2021 2:51:05 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Jack is sub optimal too?

I have a theory not proven in combat so far, that the 2nd Jack might be the best CAP plane Japan gets in a reasonable timeframe.

Speed is only ok, but weapons 4x20 (2 of them not very acurate tho) plus good climb plus decent manouvre plus SR2. George 2 has lower climb so might be not as good (on CAP!)