The Ki-45's

The Ki-45's (Full Version)

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

Message

SuluSea -> The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 3:23:42 AM)
If this helps one person more than the OP stiching this together would be worth it. [;)][:)] I've had some time tonight to look over some of the guns, cannons and statistics on various Nippon airframes there are a few models within an upgrade path that don't look like solid upgrade options. An example are the two models after the Ki-45 KAla (although the KAlb isn't in the upgrade path) , the accuracy on the two 37 mm cannons on the KAlb and KAlc are woeful. I put together an image with the help of tracker so peeps can note the statistics and armament. [image]http://i42.tinypic.com/10mscyg.jpg[/image]

Chickenboy -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 4:00:55 AM)
As usual, SuluSea, thanks for the display. I'd known that the upgrades were not worthwhile for some time, but I appreciate the visual representation too.

AcePylut -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 5:25:29 AM)
Question is... Do you need more than a "1" accuracy, when trying to hit those ultra-maneuverable B-17's and B-24's? Followed of course, by the question "I have 100 more load at a slightly longer range, giving me more chances to hit those 4E's, with twice the penetration... will that be more effective against 4E's than a 20mm with greater accuracy?"

SuluSea -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 12:41:59 PM)
Thanks Andre, [:)] I may do a few other's as well any suggestions from anyone are welcome of course. Ace- good questions, I think I'll try to run some tests and find out. I have zero experience with the editor so I have maybe a 20-80 shot that I'll be able to get it done. [;)]

PaxMondo -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 1:42:06 PM)
The answer from my testing is "Yes". Accuracy matters a great deal.

Icedawg -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 4:41:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo The answer from my testing is "Yes". Accuracy matters a great deal. So the take-home message is "Don't bother producing the Nick b and Nick c. They both suck." Is that correct?

AcePylut -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 5:17:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea Thanks Andre, [:)] I may do a few other's as well any suggestions from anyone are welcome of course. Ace- good questions, I think I'll try to run some tests and find out. I have zero experience with the editor so I have maybe a 20-80 shot that I'll be able to get it done. [;)] No experience with the editor either :)

Chickenboy -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 5:58:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icedawg quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo The answer from my testing is "Yes". Accuracy matters a great deal. So the take-home message is "Don't bother producing the Nick b and Nick c. They both suck." Is that correct? Ayup.

Captain Cruft -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/28/2012 9:58:23 PM)
While they do probably suck, you will need to build some C variant in order to move some IJA single engine LB groups over onto the FB upgrade track. Assuming PDU On.

btbw -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/29/2012 1:19:51 AM)
Well 37mm type 94 - antitank gun with manual loading, very slow rate of fire and big disturb to mantain course when shooting even from 2-engine plane like Ki-45, low accuracy only result of low ROF and low accuracy in RL 37mm Ho-203 - had only 15 ammo in belt, so in-game low accuracy is result of low ammo+low velocity and ballistic characteristics Use Ki-45KAIa, it is a best FB for Army till Randy.

Florian Geyer -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/29/2012 11:15:50 AM)
The only model you need are,the A model.Forget the rest,they are a waste. Role: -bomberkiller: just as "successful" as the rest of the japnese paperplanes -close air support(100-1000ft):average,if Flak is not to strong -low naval:very effective,but enemy air activity should be low

SuluSea -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/29/2012 12:38:34 PM)
Hi Guys, I was able to put together a sandbox which surprisingly for me the editor wasn't the toughest thing to learn. [:)] I ran the Kala against the kalc and the results were pretty much like we thought the results would be- Manila size 7 airfield , (8) B-17D's to ground bomb Takao at 7,000 ft. 12 hex's away which I felt was a modest distance. Opposing fighters were (12) Ki-45 Kala's or (12) Ki-45 Kalc's set to 100% CAP at 10,000 feet in the editor I swapped out the models so the same pilots would be flying. Experience of adversarys were both set at 50 in the editor and morale at 99. Somehow the commander got changed but he has a higher air rating for the kalc model ,leadership and inspiration are roughly the same, I'll see if I can keep the same one for the kalb. The Kala model results- 24 serviceable 22 damaged 10 write offs 24 air to air kills The Kalc model results- 31 serviceable 38 damaged 5 write offs 6 air to air kills Total bombing runs was 10x for each model. I'll put up images if anyone wants to have a look. The KI-45 kala- [image]http://i40.tinypic.com/j0a7oz.jpg[/image] The Ki-45 kalc- [image]http://i42.tinypic.com/14mc4t1.jpg[/image] and the adversary- [image]http://i39.tinypic.com/xpsryh.jpg[/image] I'll do the Ki-45 kalb at some point over the next few days and we'll see how it shakes out. [:)]

SuluSea -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/30/2012 12:43:54 AM)
Back for the Kalb test. So it's all on one post I copy and paste the Kala resuts over the ten day period. The Kala model results- 24 serviceable 22 damaged 10 write offs 24 air to air kills The Kalb model results- 29 serviceable 30 damaged 14 write offs 6 air to air kills and 1 flak kill from the troops at Takao. Must have been a recent shipment of saki. [;)] I tried to mirror the same commander as in the A model, although it's not the same guy I changed statistics to closely resemble the same leader. As most thought before running this test I think the results are conclusive that the A model is the better airframe than the two later models. during the 30 total runs I think I should note that since an Air HQ wasn't present at Manila 6 planes attacked on all raids. [image]http://i43.tinypic.com/dvpk5w.jpg[/image] It's been fun guys!! [:)]

Puhis -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/30/2012 4:17:50 PM)
Sulusea, if you run tests, you shouldn't use B-17Ds. You won't see many of these old models, and D-models actually rather easy to shot down. You should use B-17Es, which have better durability and defensive guns. B-17Es are PITA. [;)] It might not make any difference, but just a thought.

Shark7 -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/30/2012 4:19:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Sulusea, if you run tests, you shouldn't use B-17Ds. You won't see many of these old models, and D-models actually rather easy to shot down. You should use B-17Es, which have better durability and defensive guns. B-17Es are PITA. [;)] It might not make any difference, but just a thought. B-24s might even be better, they tend to be the most numerous of the Allied bombers.

SuluSea -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/30/2012 4:43:35 PM)
Good points guys! I think I'll set it up as the Ki-44 line with the B-24 being it's adversary. What do you all think about attacking distance should I bump it up from 12 to 14 hex's?

Chickenboy -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/30/2012 5:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea Good points guys! I think I'll set it up as the Ki-44 line with the B-24 being it's adversary. What do you all think about attacking distance should I bump it up from 12 to 14 hex's? Why not try it at the 'normal' and 'extended' ranges both for the B-24 model you choose? [:)]

Elladan -> RE: The Ki-45's (1/30/2012 5:35:32 PM)
I would also increase the numbers greatly in the editor. That way you level out a lot of randomness inherent in combat routines and much improve the meaningfulness of your results. Perhaps start with 200 bombers vs 200 defenders?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375