B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1

B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (Full Version)

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

Message

Yakface -> B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/23/2014 11:21:09 PM)
The B5M1 seems better than either of the other two. Any reason not to standardise on that plane?

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/24/2014 2:21:52 AM)
B5N2 will later have access to MAD and radar. however the biggest issue with B5M1 is its service rating of 2 (vs. 1 for B5N2). This is not a terrible drawback for a carrier plane, as you rarely have sustained operations, but I still prefer SR1, as the only other value that is significantly better in B5M1 is cruise speed.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/24/2014 2:48:56 AM)
And the biggest advantage of B5N1 is that you can build around one hundred at half price, as it uses an old engine you have on stock. these can then be used on land bases or as Kamikaze

Insano -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/25/2014 2:39:14 AM)
I use the Mabel some in front line carrier operations. I agree with you that it looks slightly better than the Kate on paper. One thing though is that you want some torpedo bombers sharing the nav search load due to their range vs the Val. Here the service rating of 2 instead of the Kate's 1 becomes disabling. In my experience you can go 3-4 days with significant (30%) nav search and then you have some airframe fatigue which would limit the number of your available planes. If you know or can control that you will be going in to carrier action in this time frame then the Mabel will not limit you on the first day's action. On the other hand, while it's not unlimited, Kates can support nav search for weeks at a time and still maintain 100% air frame availability. In a fight you don't want to be missing even a handful of planes due to maintenance. Damaged Mabels take significantly longer to repair. It seems like it's actually longer than double of the Kate. This would limit you on the second day of a battle. What I ended up settling on was Mabels for Zuiho, Shoho, and Hosho. The air groups are sized so they use up the entire torpedo complement in the first strike and they do not support nav search. The service rating of 2 doesn't seem to be as big of a deal when using the Mabel as LBA providing adequate aviation support is available. On a second run through I would think the Mabel is more trouble than its worth. It's not like I can equip even half the KB with it due to its service rating drawback. I would make my half price B5N1 Kates but standardize on the B5N2 Kate as almost all other JFB do. It was fun trying to get some good use out of this airframe though.

PaxMondo -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/25/2014 4:08:36 AM)
As noted above, Mabel with SR2 is not an optimal choice. Building the B5N1 is an option, but it does NOT upgrade to the B5N2. That means you have to spend supply to build it up and then convert later. Not an obvious decision. I've done it both ways. My opinion now is that it depends upon what my Ha-35 build strategy and demand is going to be. The one thing that building the B5N1 does do is ease the demand of the popular Ha-35 during the critical first few months. That may be worth the supply expense. Either way, this is in the end a very minor economic decision.

Yakface -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/25/2014 7:35:08 PM)
Thanks for the tips guys, as always some good stuff that I would have missed, to add to my considerations.

geofflambert -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/25/2014 7:52:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury And the biggest advantage of B5N1 is that you can build around one hundred at half price, as it uses an old engine you have on stock. these can then be used on land bases or as Kamikaze Or as trainers

Chickenboy -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/26/2014 1:57:16 AM)
Eventually, you'll want the B6N1/2 line for the balance of the war. Once your carrier fleet has been re-equipped with this, then the fate befalling the B5 line is academic. I agree with the others that recommend building out the entirety of the B5N1 line, since the engines are in surfeit. Having plenty of these on hand can mitigate your immediate need for the B5N2 production and you can moderate your production accordingly. In the end, though, all of the B5 line should be relegated to training and kamikaze duty. If your Jill research and production is apace, you should be able to start making this transition in early 1943.

geofflambert -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/26/2014 2:18:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Eventually, you'll want the B6N1/2 line for the balance of the war. Once your carrier fleet has been re-equipped with this, then the fate befalling the B5 line is academic. I agree with the others that recommend building out the entirety of the B5N1 line, since the engines are in surfeit. Having plenty of these on hand can mitigate your immediate need for the B5N2 production and you can moderate your production accordingly. In the end, though, all of the B5 line should be relegated to training and kamikaze duty. If your Jill research and production is apace, you should be able to start making this transition in early 1943. Oh no. I am now reduced to producing a surfeit of mitigating but immoderate advice for the balance of the war. I must do so apace or the fate befalling all of us will be moderate. I really need to discuss this with his flock in their coop.

Chickenboy -> RE: B5N1, B5N2 or B5M1 (8/26/2014 3:03:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Eventually, you'll want the B6N1/2 line for the balance of the war. Once your carrier fleet has been re-equipped with this, then the fate befalling the B5 line is academic. I agree with the others that recommend building out the entirety of the B5N1 line, since the engines are in surfeit. Having plenty of these on hand can mitigate your immediate need for the B5N2 production and you can moderate your production accordingly. In the end, though, all of the B5 line should be relegated to training and kamikaze duty. If your Jill research and production is apace, you should be able to start making this transition in early 1943. Oh no. I am now reduced to producing a surfeit of mitigating but immoderate advice for the balance of the war. I must do so apace or the fate befalling all of us will be moderate. I really need to discuss this with his flock in their coop. Sorry if the language used was over your head, Lizard. I sometimes forget myself. Here's something that may be more understandable for you: [;)] "ROCK! BIG ROCK! HIT! HIT! MORE ROCKS! HIT WITH MORE BIG ROCKS!"

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.609375