Tojo or Tony (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Athius -> Tojo or Tony (1/11/2010 9:42:21 PM)

As a mid-war fighter, which one do you prefer?
Iam leaning towards the tony, it has the same arnament and almost the same manoeuvrability but is amored which means less dead pilots. The only downside I can find is the worse service rating.

Any thoughts?


Jasper



vaned74 -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/11/2010 9:52:25 PM)

I generally stick with the Tojo.  If I recall correctly the following:

- Tojo has about 2 hexes extra range
- Tojo is faster
- Tojo has better maneuver ratings at all altitudes
- Tojo has better climb rate which is good for late war interception of bombers
- Tojo engine is Nakajima Ha-35 which is a more standard engine used on a lot of airframes
- Tojo (a) is available 5 months prior to Tony
- Tony has the one point of armor, but, Tojo upgrades to a model (c) or (d) in early 44 with armor

Terminal upgrades of Ki-61 Tony don't look all that impressive - by the time you get to them, the Frank will be available which is a big step up.  Any Tojos I have accumulated I can use for point defense fighters against bombers.  The (b) version I believe also comes with a 40 mm cannon.

That said, I don't know how valuable the one point of armor is to survivability.  My P40s in my allied game seem to die against lightly armed zeros with relative ease.  Haven't checked to see if my pilots survive any better - just know the planes don't.  By the way, the P40 is a slightly less maneuverable version of the Ki-61 with better guns.




Athius -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/11/2010 10:04:21 PM)

Well the thing is, the Ki-44 just doesnt seem such a big step up from the ki-43. The ki43 even has early'er armor.



Miller -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/11/2010 10:28:38 PM)

Forget the early Tony and Tojo (The -1a versions). "But the Oscar has only 2 mgs" I hear you cry.......well the early Tony/Tojo only add an extra pair of 7.7mm guns which are quite useless against armoured bombers.

The Oscar IIb, which arrives in 2/43 is much better until the heavier armed Tojo comes on the scene in late 43. I would not consider the Tony at all due to its high service rating, too many will die on the ground under 4E raids due to being unrepaired in time from previous actions. Just my 2p.....



vaned74 -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/11/2010 11:03:49 PM)

I'm with Miller on this one.  I don't care much for the earlier Tojo and have considered not even upgrading from the (b) version of Tojo so as to keep the 40 mm cannon for anti-heavy bomber duties over the home islands.



PaxMondo -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 3:10:29 AM)

Does the Tojo B work?  The accuracy of that 40mm looks so bad ....



castor troy -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 8:28:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Does the Tojo B work?  The accuracy of that 40mm looks so bad ....



this will be the main question IMO. If the 40mm works in the game (we know it didnīt in real life) then it will be an excellent fighter when looking at itīs stats. Compare it to the available Allied ac of that timeframe and every Allied player will start shaking. Is the 40mm useless in the game then it makes the whole II-b model completely useless as you will end up with the same armament of the Nate which canīt take down anything.



stuman -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 9:06:24 AM)

I think one of you guys needs to test it now [;)]



Roko -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 10:59:19 AM)

There is something wrong with Ki-44 in game.

2x7.7 + 2x12.7 was used only on prototypes and Ki-44-Ia ( 9 planes )
and Ki-44-IIa ( 3 planes ) - together only about 23 planes ever built
Ki-44-IIb used 4x12.7
Ki-44-IIc used 2x12.7 + 2x20
2x12.7 + 2x40mm was used on Ki-44-IIc KAI, first built May 1944

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/986/shoki.jpg



Sardaukar -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 11:07:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

There is something wrong with Ki-44 in game.

2x7.7 + 2x12.7 was used only on prototypes and Ki-44-Ia ( 9 planes )
and Ki-44-IIa ( 3 planes ) - together only about 23 planes ever built
Ki-44-IIb used 4x12.7
Ki-44-IIc used 2x12.7 + 2x20
2x12.7 + 2x40mm was used on Ki-44-IIc KAI, first built May 1944

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/986/shoki.jpg


Is that Francillon? If it is, the AE aircraft guru Timtom said following:

'Cos they're directly or indirectly channeling Francillon, who in turn is channeling the prone-to-errors 1st edition of the 8-volume Japanese language "Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945".

According to him, AE Ki-44 armament is correct.



moose1999 -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 11:23:47 AM)

I'm planning on trying out both the Tojo and the Tony.
Yes, it sounds ineffective, but I'm playing against the AI so I can afford to experiment.
I have a couple of Tojo squadrons now, and they're proving very effective against P-40s as well as Hurricanes.
Definately better than Zeroes.



castor troy -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 11:40:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

There is something wrong with Ki-44 in game.

2x7.7 + 2x12.7 was used only on prototypes and Ki-44-Ia ( 9 planes )
and Ki-44-IIa ( 3 planes ) - together only about 23 planes ever built
Ki-44-IIb used 4x12.7
Ki-44-IIc used 2x12.7 + 2x20
2x12.7 + 2x40mm was used on Ki-44-IIc KAI, first built May 1944

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/986/shoki.jpg



I started a thread about this and Timtom pointed out that the IIb used the cannons and not the MGs. It was a surprise to me too as most inet sources say different. Itīs correct as it is in AE it seems.



Roko -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 12:07:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

There is something wrong with Ki-44 in game.

2x7.7 + 2x12.7 was used only on prototypes and Ki-44-Ia ( 9 planes )
and Ki-44-IIa ( 3 planes ) - together only about 23 planes ever built
Ki-44-IIb used 4x12.7
Ki-44-IIc used 2x12.7 + 2x20
2x12.7 + 2x40mm was used on Ki-44-IIc KAI, first built May 1944

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/986/shoki.jpg


Is that Francillon? If it is, the AE aircraft guru Timtom said following:

'Cos they're directly or indirectly channeling Francillon, who in turn is channeling the prone-to-errors 1st edition of the 8-volume Japanese language "Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945".

According to him, AE Ki-44 armament is correct.


Its from Richard M. Beuschel - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki in Japanese Army Air Force Service.
Similiar data in John F. Brindley - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki.
But who's right ? [&:]



xj900uk -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 1:33:03 PM)

In RL the Tojo was  afar more popular & loved plane than the Tony, which suffered from shoddy workmanship, lack of trained/qualified service engineers & also poorly planned servicability.  For example,  all the Tony's based in PNG had to be boxed & shipped to the PI just for an engine change!



Rugens -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 2:32:47 PM)

I like a mix of Oscars and Tojos. Each has some advantages that make it very useful to use them in a mission specific manner. Hands down though for killing allied aircraft my preference is the Tojo. With it's speed and heavier firepower it can allow the IJA to compete in the air until better models come along. Also, a big advantage is that the Tojo, Oscar as well as the Zero all use the Nakajima Ha-35 engine. Very useful to use the heck out of these designs until the next generation engine Nakajima Ha-45 come available.



castor troy -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 3:22:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

There is something wrong with Ki-44 in game.

2x7.7 + 2x12.7 was used only on prototypes and Ki-44-Ia ( 9 planes )
and Ki-44-IIa ( 3 planes ) - together only about 23 planes ever built
Ki-44-IIb used 4x12.7
Ki-44-IIc used 2x12.7 + 2x20
2x12.7 + 2x40mm was used on Ki-44-IIc KAI, first built May 1944

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/986/shoki.jpg


Is that Francillon? If it is, the AE aircraft guru Timtom said following:

'Cos they're directly or indirectly channeling Francillon, who in turn is channeling the prone-to-errors 1st edition of the 8-volume Japanese language "Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945".

According to him, AE Ki-44 armament is correct.


Its from Richard M. Beuschel - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki in Japanese Army Air Force Service.
Similiar data in John F. Brindley - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki.
But who's right ? [&:]




for me it just doesnīt make sense that a 40mm cannon armed version has entered service that early as the heavy bomber threat was by far not as big at the time of the II-b model than at the time of the c model. Nothing else at the time of the II-b seems to have had such cannons so itīs kinda strange.



castor troy -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 3:25:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein

I like a mix of Oscars and Tojos. Each has some advantages that make it very useful to use them in a mission specific manner. Hands down though for killing allied aircraft my preference is the Tojo. With it's speed and heavier firepower it can allow the IJA to compete in the air until better models come along. Also, a big advantage is that the Tojo, Oscar as well as the Zero all use the Nakajima Ha-35 engine. Very useful to use the heck out of these designs until the next generation engine Nakajima Ha-45 come available.



the Oscar and the Tojo use the same engine? [X(] And the Tojo is something like 40 or 50mph faster? So howīs that possible then? Am at work so I canīt check anyway, sounds as strange as fielding the 40mm cannons that early. Is this a modified version of the engine that is not reflected in the game?



John 3rd -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 3:39:26 PM)

I have always liked the Tony but the engine point is a good one with Mister Tojo.  To me the key is building a combination of the two.  Heavily favor one design but have the other to help.  Maybe do a 60-40 or 70-30 split?  Something like that for those big furballs in 1943...



Athius -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 4:03:37 PM)

Well, I just ran a test. I edited the Guad scenario, adding 1 ki-44b and 1 ki-61a group at Lae.

The opposition consisted mainly of p39's, so the results may be compromised.
However, I also encounterd 1 b17 raid (my escorts did not manage to penetrate the escorts) and 1 other raid of british medium bombers.


The results: the ki44b group claimed 10 kills, and losing 3 planes and only 1 pilot

the ki61a group claimed 3 kills, losing 6 planes and losing 4 pilots, despite the armor.

During the battle I noticed that the Ki-44 was slightly more effective at killing bombers, sometimes killing bombers at a distance of 3. During the fighter battles I received a lot of "enemy plane damaged" messages, so iam not sure if the 40mm cannon is hitting them.

Also, when I looked at the arnament of the ki44b I noticed it was equiped with 4 12.7mm guns, instead of the 2 its supposed to have.



Rugens -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 4:21:50 PM)

I don't have specific test results to prove my gut feeling but my gut says that in building the air combat formula, the designers stayed pretty close to Chenault's belief that speed was paramount. In no way am I saying it is right or wrong, just that my observations are that the game attaches a lot of importance to speed.




Q-Ball -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 5:15:01 PM)

Miller's point earlier got me thinking. I wonder if he is right about Oscar being better than Tojo. This is an important question, because you need to plan ahead on fighter production, and changing it is pretty much impossible once you commit.

First, on Tojo v Tony, it's not easy to dissect, because the different versions come on at various times. Off the bat, you get a TOJO 5 months early. TONY comes with armor in early '43, but is otherwise inferior. So, how important is the armor? Then, Tojo gets armor later in 1943, and THEN is a superior plane. Until the Tony get an upgrade in weaponry. Etc. etc. This is very complex, and someone need to break it down, weighting what is important vs. what isn't. Which one is better? It depends on which month you ask.

To make it more complicated, the OSCAR isn't trash anymore like in WITP. Us old timers made our last Oscar in July of 1942, then stopped. Is the OSCAR better than the TOJO? Tojo is still faster, but that means less in AE. The armament is almost equal, because the 7.7mm mg sucks pretty bad. OSCAR is more maneuverable, and in May'43 the IIb model gets armor. As always, the range is much better, capable of escorting Bettys. So how important is armor again? Etc. etc.................

WITP was pretty straightforward; TONY/TOJO came in the same month, and were almost equal. Now it's alot more complex! Someone please break it down for us!



vaned74 -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 6:02:01 PM)

To follow up on Q-Balls points.  Fighter production needs to be planned early.  I always try to come up with a production strategy for the war as early as possible - now, realistically this is actually unrealistic b/c we really shouldn't know the performance properties of aircraft in R/D, but, not much way to overcome that knowledge in the game w/o losing some historicity.  Both sides are operating with 20/20 hindsight.

On the Tony vs. Tojo - it really isn't until 9/43 that the armament issue is that different - at that point the Tony gets 2x 20 mm cannon which are better than the two 12.7mm MGs.  As well, this is only a 6 month problem because in 4/44 the Frank becomes available and it is far superior to the Tony or the Tojo.  At that point, I would be replacing all production with Franks to the extent supplies allow.

Lastly, I would state that engine production is far more complicated now than in WitP - a 1941 engine will not work on a 1944 advanced fighter.  With supply production for Japan much lower than in the original WitP - this retooling of factories is a critical cost analysis.




witpqs -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/12/2010 6:35:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Tojo is still faster, but that means less in AE.


I thought speed meant more in AE - have I been going on the wrong assumption?



Athius -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/13/2010 11:06:54 AM)

Reading this discussion I think I'll go with my original plan: use 40% of my R&D capacity on the Ki-84a to bring the plane forward to mid 43 and stick with Oscars (IIB at that point) for the time being, supplementing the oscars with ki-45's for bomber interceptions



castor troy -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/13/2010 11:44:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Athius

Reading this discussion I think I'll go with my original plan: use 40% of my R&D capacity on the Ki-84a to bring the plane forward to mid 43 and stick with Oscars (IIB at that point) for the time being, supplementing the oscars with ki-45's for bomber interceptions



Ki-84 in mid 43?[8|] Hope your playing the AI because it wouldnīt care...

I hope this isnīt possible in AE anyway.



xj900uk -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/13/2010 1:27:52 PM)

IMO when it comes to JAAF fighters take the following points into account :

(1). Early war the Oscar (any model) is tons better than the Nate.
(2). Oscar is also the most manoueverable plane in the entire campaign.  It is also, however,  just about the most lightly armed or armoured.
(3). Tony was a fine plane with decent armour and armament (for its time) but suffered from servicability problems (represented in the game) general unpopularity, and also is an entirely new R&D path which requires a lot of valuable resources to be developed properly.
(4). Tojo has the major advantages of heavier and more flexible armament + uses the tried & trusted Ha-35 engine (also mounted in the oscar & Zero, so for the Jap player it's easier to produce)
(5). Frank is probably the best all-round IJAAF fighter of the war, which first entered service in 4/44.  With some decent R&D you could get it a little sooner & then switch over mass production to it as soon as it is available



timtom -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/13/2010 2:08:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

There is something wrong with Ki-44 in game.

2x7.7 + 2x12.7 was used only on prototypes and Ki-44-Ia ( 9 planes )
and Ki-44-IIa ( 3 planes ) - together only about 23 planes ever built
Ki-44-IIb used 4x12.7
Ki-44-IIc used 2x12.7 + 2x20
2x12.7 + 2x40mm was used on Ki-44-IIc KAI, first built May 1944

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/986/shoki.jpg


Is that Francillon? If it is, the AE aircraft guru Timtom said following:

'Cos they're directly or indirectly channeling Francillon, who in turn is channeling the prone-to-errors 1st edition of the 8-volume Japanese language "Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1900-1945".

According to him, AE Ki-44 armament is correct.


Its from Richard M. Beuschel - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki in Japanese Army Air Force Service.
Similiar data in John F. Brindley - Nakajima Ki-44 Shoki.
But who's right ? [&:]



Thanks, but you give me to much credit. I just leech off others such as Jim Long of J-aircraft.com.

Reg. the armament, Mr.Long explains in detail on the following thread -> http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=5995.0

Note that on request Mr.Long kindly provided me with the central source underpinning his argument, ie the CINCPAC-CINCPOA Special Translation #73.






Athius -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/13/2010 9:57:31 PM)

But the question remains, is the 40mm effective?



vaned74 -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/13/2010 10:14:40 PM)

I can safely say that R&D to advance an a/c like the Ki-84 into mid-43 is probably not possible.  I ran some tests and converted every r/d aircraft factory at start in Japan to Ki-84-1a.  That would be about 70 a/c factories all doing r&d.  I clicked different models until all 70 factories were size 0x(1).  In about 30 days - only 1 a/c factory was repaired.  This is the second time I have run a r/d repair test and seen a repair rate of about 1/3000 per day for a/c factories on r&d aircraft.

Note also - lest you want to expand those r&d factories to something like 0x(10) thinking you'll have 700 factory rates to attempt repair per day that an R&D factory will not produce any R&D points at all unless the entire site is repaired (ie meaning the 10 pt factory would have to be fully repaired - so if 1 point repaired you still don't get any R&D point).

I have not tested to see if the repair rate is higher the closer you get to the actual arrival date of the plane.  My guess is it is - but, give up on your dreams of advancing late war aircraft by a lot.



Rugens -> RE: Tojo or Tony (1/14/2010 2:50:54 PM)

This is a great summary. One of the important issues I forgot to mention earlier which is touched on in this list is pilot survivability. Though the type of plane is very important, everybit as important is the development of a plan for training pilots and minimizing their casualties. The Oscars duribility is 23 while the Tojo is 28, so in that regard the Tojo is about 20% better. Though the Oscar gets armor before the Tojo, for most of the time neither are armored. Certainly in play the Tojo's seem to take fewer losses than Oscars in comparable situations.


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

IMO when it comes to JAAF fighters take the following points into account :

(1). Early war the Oscar (any model) is tons better than the Nate.
(2). Oscar is also the most manoueverable plane in the entire campaign.  It is also, however,  just about the most lightly armed or armoured.
(3). Tony was a fine plane with decent armour and armament (for its time) but suffered from servicability problems (represented in the game) general unpopularity, and also is an entirely new R&D path which requires a lot of valuable resources to be developed properly.
(4). Tojo has the major advantages of heavier and more flexible armament + uses the tried & trusted Ha-35 engine (also mounted in the oscar & Zero, so for the Jap player it's easier to produce)
(5). Frank is probably the best all-round IJAAF fighter of the war, which first entered service in 4/44.  With some decent R&D you could get it a little sooner & then switch over mass production to it as soon as it is available




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.375