quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo




The first Tojo gets 2x7.7 CL, 2x12.7 F. The Oscar has 2x12.7 CL until the IV model. These are equivalent armaments. 2x12.7F = 1x12.7 CL literally. The accuracy for CL is doubled. Comparing 2x7.7 CL and 1x12.7 CL, roughly the same, many players will give the edge to the 12.7 but most would agree it is a close thing.

Next range. The first Tojo will sweep at 5 hexes, for DOUBLE your supply you get 6 hex. Oscar is also 5, but for double your supply usage you get 10 hexes. If you plan to sweep at extended range, you will learn the penalty for that quickly.

All the other factors are mitigated by how you setup your missions (altitude, leaders, etc.). If you don't agree, I suggest you go read Herb's last long AAR, he is an acknowledged expert in Air Combat and he detailed his mission prep routine thoroughly. His results are spread throughout 3 of the best written AAR's on the forum. Except for DUR. That is the real difference between the two. Oscar 22 DUR means armor is almost moot; for the pilot to survive, the aircraft has to make it home, Oscar doesn't do that well (it tends to disintegrate [;)]. Tojo 28 DUR gets the AC home more often, you lose the AC (crash on landing), but save the pilot. In the early war, losing a pilot is a big deal.

After about 3/42 though, unless the SOV are activated (Lowpe!), you should never, ever be short of fighter pilots. If you are, you need to work on your pilot training program(s). What this means is that pilot losses are also almost moot for the IJ by the time the Tojo is available.

If you practice good mechanics for your air missions, you should see very little difference between Oscar and Tojo in sweep effectiveness with two caveats:
- slightly higher AC losses and noticeably higher pilot losses due to DUR for the Oscar
- far greater flexibility in terms of basing and a higher tempo of operations for the Oscar.

While the IJ has initiative, IJ has little problem making up AC and pilot losses and can always achieve positive force ratios (much like the allies from '44 on) when she wants. Initiative is crucial in combat and this reality is accurately modeled in this game. The 2nd caveat should be of greater import than the first for IJ players until they cede the initiative, and that should be as late in the game as possible. This means, you should be using Oscar primarily with Tojo being your preferred CAP fighter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
If Japan exploits Tojo and Tony production it creates an unbalanced game that will not be enjoyable for many allied players, and enjoyment is the entire point of the game.

However, it is too restrictive for my taste at times. I don't like the "dead ends" it forces for many air groups. Why oblige the player to continue with a group dead-ended with Zeros M3a or M5 for example although he might have ample Zero M5c models available to upgrade? I can live with preventing a switch from the Zero line to Jack of George, but at least I would like to be able to follow through the path of a model line. Same for Tony Ia to Ic for one Tony group and Tony Ib to Id for the other - heck, there are only two groups allowed to fly the Tony in 1943, no need to restrict and complicate things further.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

PDU off does slow the game down a bit (ops tempo tends to be too overall) by forcing both sides to use less effective airframes at the front for longer periods than a PDU on games. The Allies only have a limited number of groups flying good planes and Japan can counter only with an even more limited number of groups flying good planes. Forces caution and hard choices for deployments.

However, it is too restrictive for my taste at times. I don't like the "dead ends" it forces for many air groups. Why oblige the player to continue with a group dead-ended with Zeros M3a or M5 for example although he might have ample Zero M5c models available to upgrade? I can live with preventing a switch from the Zero line to Jack of George, but at least I would like to be able to follow through the path of a model line. Same for Tony Ia to Ic for one Tony group and Tony Ib to Id for the other - heck, there are only two groups allowed to fly the Tony in 1943, no need to restrict and complicate things further.

quote:

I would have to be off my meds to have 5 rufe r&d factories repaired to 30.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

PDU off does slow the game down a bit (ops tempo tends to be too overall) by forcing both sides to use less effective airframes at the front for longer periods than a PDU on games. The Allies only have a limited number of groups flying good planes and Japan can counter only with an even more limited number of groups flying good planes. Forces caution and hard choices for deployments.

However, it is too restrictive for my taste at times. I don't like the "dead ends" it forces for many air groups. Why oblige the player to continue with a group dead-ended with Zeros M3a or M5 for example although he might have ample Zero M5c models available to upgrade? I can live with preventing a switch from the Zero line to Jack of George, but at least I would like to be able to follow through the path of a model line. Same for Tony Ia to Ic for one Tony group and Tony Ib to Id for the other - heck, there are only two groups allowed to fly the Tony in 1943, no need to restrict and complicate things further.

It is certainly not perfect, especially for many of the hypothetical trees for late models. DBB is worse, especially because it does not allow for upgrading LBA IJN to the Sam. I understand why many players prefer PDU:On. For players with significant experience, however, I do think that veteran Japanese players should refrain from "skipping steps" in research in PDU:on. Substituting the first models of Tony and Tojo for the Oscar IIa in itself is not completely "game-breaking," but deploying 1945 airframes, like the Ki-100, in 1943 can be.

Skipping steps in R&D and PDU:on, along with scenario 2, provide options for Japanese players with less experience to give veteran allied players a good game. So, there are no "hard and fast" rules or a best way to play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

PDU off does slow the game down a bit (ops tempo tends to be too overall) by forcing both sides to use less effective airframes at the front for longer periods than a PDU on games. The Allies only have a limited number of groups flying good planes and Japan can counter only with an even more limited number of groups flying good planes. Forces caution and hard choices for deployments.

However, it is too restrictive for my taste at times. I don't like the "dead ends" it forces for many air groups. Why oblige the player to continue with a group dead-ended with Zeros M3a or M5 for example although he might have ample Zero M5c models available to upgrade? I can live with preventing a switch from the Zero line to Jack of George, but at least I would like to be able to follow through the path of a model line. Same for Tony Ia to Ic for one Tony group and Tony Ib to Id for the other - heck, there are only two groups allowed to fly the Tony in 1943, no need to restrict and complicate things further.

It is certainly not perfect, especially for many of the hypothetical trees for late models. DBB is worse, especially because it does not allow for upgrading LBA IJN to the Sam. I understand why many players prefer PDU:On. For players with significant experience, however, I do think that veteran Japanese players should refrain from "skipping steps" in research in PDU:on. Substituting the first models of Tony and Tojo for the Oscar IIa in itself is not completely "game-breaking," but deploying 1945 airframes, like the Ki-100, in 1943 can be.

Skipping steps in R&D and PDU:on, along with scenario 2, provide options for Japanese players with less experience to give veteran allied players a good game. So, there are no "hard and fast" rules or a best way to play.

Since you brought up Scenario 2 [:)]

I consider myself an experienced Japanese player and I would never play a PBEM Scenario 1. Even against a newbie Allied player.

While both sides have the advantage of hindsight, this favors the Allied player far more than Japan. At least that is my experience playing as Japan. Since I know what will happen as Japan, I see no reason to play a Scenario 1 game since I know the outcome will likely be much worse than historical. At least with Scenario 2, I get to maintain parity a little longer before the hammer starts to fall. Which extends my enjoyment of the game a little longer. The Allies will still win of course. It may even take the game into '45 like my last PBEM game did. But I do not want to spend 3-4 years of my life playing a PBEM full CG game and lose in '44 which can easily happen with good Allied players. But other people may want a different experience which is fine.

The Allied player can make some pretty major mistakes and still come out smelling like a rose. The same cannot be said of Japan.

Of course there is a major downside for Japan if the war gets into late '44+. And that is the amount of supplies taken for the pilot pool. Since Japan gets a huge boost in pilot numbers in Scenario 2, this pool gets even bigger as the war progresses. Since there is no way to turn this off, it can become a major supply drain when Japan need supplies the most. So Scenario 2 is not all honey and roses [:)]

Just outlining my thoughts about my PBEM experiences as Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
All the other factors are mitigated by how you setup your missions (altitude, leaders, etc.). If you don't agree, I suggest you go read Herb's last long AAR, he is an acknowledged expert in Air Combat and he detailed his mission prep routine thoroughly. His results are spread throughout 3 of the best written AAR's on the forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I do not want to go too far into details, because I do not like to reveal all of the various tactics that I employ in the air war. I do hint at some things that I do and make mention from time to time, but one has to "read between the lines" at times to see what I am doing.

I think that you are basing much of your judgment on your experience playing against the AI. Remember that playing a human player is very different. For example, you can sweep the AI at the max altitude of a manuever band and come in above it almost every time. So you can sweep the AI with Oscars at 15K, and your Oscars will perform well, because the dive makes up for their lack of speed, and they are within their effective manuever band. If you try this against a human player more than once or twice, he will adjust his CAP to 18 or 19K. Then, many of your Oscars will climb out of the 15K manuever band to engage only to be dived on and shot to ribbons. If this happens against Hurricanes, for example, the Oscars will be absolutely obliterated; I mean like 15 to 1 in kills. I know this to be true, because it has happened to me.

Now, try the same experiment with Tojos. They will climb, meet the CAP, and fight on even terms or better against Hurricanes, P-40Es, and so forth. This is just one example. There are many others. The point is that Oscars in dogfights that occur above 15K often get destroyed. Tojos have a great deal more flexibility with their altitude settings. They are not cannon fodder above 15K, and they perform well low too, because of their good climb and sufficient manueverability.

When I played the AI, I always thought that the Oscar was a pretty good plane. I now realize that it is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

For players with significant experience, however, I do think that veteran Japanese players should refrain from "skipping steps" in research in PDU:on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Then, Herb's AAR. his proficiency is simply stunning. seriously. You have to also read his opponents to see the combat summary's to appreciate how good his "air game" really is. Herb rarely includes combat reports directly in his AAR's, they are build into the story instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
For players with significant experience, however, I do think that veteran Japanese players should refrain from "skipping steps" in research in PDU:on. Substituting the first models of Tony and Tojo for the Oscar IIa in itself is not completely "game-breaking," but deploying 1945 airframes, like the Ki-100, in 1943 can be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Then, Herb's AAR. his proficiency is simply stunning. seriously. You have to also read his opponents to see the combat summary's to appreciate how good his "air game" really is. Herb rarely includes combat reports directly in his AAR's, they are build into the story instead.

Could provide a link as I cannot find one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
For players with significant experience, however, I do think that veteran Japanese players should refrain from "skipping steps" in research in PDU:on. Substituting the first models of Tony and Tojo for the Oscar IIa in itself is not completely "game-breaking," but deploying 1945 airframes, like the Ki-100, in 1943 can be.

The Ki100 isn't a wonder plane, and researching it early, and skipping all the other Tonies doesn't break the game, not even close. Japan is actually worse off diluting their r&d into this plane unless it is pdu off.


Frank can easily be gotten in June of 1943, and even in PDU off can field 4 Sentai immediately, and 7 with a little bit of r&d into Oscar & Tojo Line. Jacks and George can be fielded even earlier, and all three are far superior to the Tony 100i and 100ii.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

If you are unable to use Oscar in sweeps effectively, then I can suggest a number of readings for you to help your tactics:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

If you are unable to use Oscar in sweeps effectively, then I can suggest a number of readings for you to help your tactics:

Sweeping with Japanese fighters. For most of the game, about the only plane you can use in a fire and forget method for sweeps is the George. All other models up to and including the Frank A, you need to think, plan and use selectively.

I have swept with Oscars, and they do ok. Fighters I have had poor luck sweeping with are the Jack and Tony.

I kind of believe every fighter has a role to play for Japan.

Oscar insanely high cruise speed, and will often sweep ahead, low alt cap. 1st generation engine, range(IIIa)
Tony is good for deep 4E base protection, okay as escorts, uses first generation engine,early armor
Jack is great front line fighter defense, 1st generation engine, very early to r&d
George can sweep, and do everything else well
Zero early 4e killer, CVs, escort, low alt cap
Frank and Sam the best you will get and field in large numbers
Randy...high altitude, decent in nf role
Dinah...great early night fighter
Tojo great defense thru 43, low level cap, short range, can sweep in 1942, 1943 with care.
Nate and Claude trainers for filling out training squadrons

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Then, Herb's AAR. his proficiency is simply stunning. seriously. You have to also read his opponents to see the combat summary's to appreciate how good his "air game" really is. Herb rarely includes combat reports directly in his AAR's, they are build into the story instead.

Could provide a link as I cannot find one?

You'll need to search, but not too far back. He is in the process of publishing a book based upon it and he brought it forward just a few months back. His opponent, now that one is likely buried pretty far back ... 3 years? something like that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Then, Herb's AAR. his proficiency is simply stunning. seriously. You have to also read his opponents to see the combat summary's to appreciate how good his "air game" really is. Herb rarely includes combat reports directly in his AAR's, they are build into the story instead.

Could provide a link as I cannot find one?

You'll need to search, but not too far back. He is in the process of publishing a book based upon it and he brought it forward just a few months back. His opponent, now that one is likely buried pretty far back ... 3 years? something like that.

I searched for a HERB and could not find one with significant posts that would nmean he had an AAR. Is that his real name or forum name?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


Here you go. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2560960

The problem with some of the AARs, is that they are old and use tactics that no longer work because of patches or Symon's air mod.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Then, Herb's AAR. his proficiency is simply stunning. seriously. You have to also read his opponents to see the combat summary's to appreciate how good his "air game" really is. Herb rarely includes combat reports directly in his AAR's, they are build into the story instead.

Could provide a link as I cannot find one?

You'll need to search, but not too far back. He is in the process of publishing a book based upon it and he brought it forward just a few months back. His opponent, now that one is likely buried pretty far back ... 3 years? something like that.

I searched for a HERB and could not find one with significant posts that would nmean he had an AAR. Is that his real name or forum name?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Do any of you JFB's tend to accelerate R&D for your carrier torpedo and dive bombers or would you consider the gain too minimal for the cost in materials?