IJFB R+D question (Full Version)

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



Message

Hanzberger -> IJFB R+D question (12/15/2019 3:13:33 PM)

Ok on the topic of Navy NF's, what is the plan?
Do you go for the Irving or the Zero?
Originally have it setup for 3X Zero. But I'm wondering if I should switch to the Irving.
Yes the downsides: 2 engines, speed, gun value, durability and the list goes on.
Upside: 11 Groups, If you can get the engine bonus possible get first group mid 43.
All other NF's have 0 groups, except the Judy (1). Is it safe to assume you can upgrade all groups to the zero?
Or do a combo, maybe 1 Irving 2 Zero?
Just thinking it would be nice to have some NF's sooner then later....



PaxMondo -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/16/2019 3:07:59 AM)

PDU ON or OFF?



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/16/2019 10:03:52 AM)

On



PaxMondo -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/16/2019 11:38:40 AM)

Then you need to decide your strategy for the game. Auto Vic or Deep Defense until 5/46.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/16/2019 12:35:18 PM)

A night-fighter should have radar and fly faster than a B-29 in order to find and catch them, a good punch to shoot them down and armor protection to keep losses down. An early availability date and an engine produced in abundance would be a plus.

Unfortunately, none of the IJNAF night-fighters has all those attributes (and only one IJAAF comes close). So pick your favorite sub-optimal airframe and pray to the Gods of War.

[image]local://upfiles/1313/660F43110732488A8193989434D559CF.jpg[/image]



ITAKLinus -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/16/2019 3:47:51 PM)

Provided that IJNAF is just half of your available airforce, I generally prefer investing a little bit on IJAAF only.
Reasoning behind that is the number of available air groups.

I tend to prefer the mediocre Dinah over the Randy for the simple reason that Randy comes online very very late and I don't want to devote huge efforts to NF R&D.
In my current PBEMs I don't research NFs at all in the first year of war. In the one of the two in which I am in 43 already, I am now researching Dinah only with relative focus.
Don't think my approach is wise, tough.



PaxMondo -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/17/2019 1:16:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

A night-fighter should have radar and fly faster than a B-29 in order to find and catch them, a good punch to shoot them down and armor protection to keep losses down. An early availability date and an engine produced in abundance would be a plus.

Unfortunately, none of the IJNAF night-fighters has all those attributes (and only one IJAAF comes close). So pick your favorite sub-optimal airframe and pray to the Gods of War.


+1

And don't build too many because you don't have a lot of groups even in PDU ON that can use them. [:(]



PaxMondo -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/17/2019 1:25:11 AM)

I don't research NF's much any more. There are too few groups, the planes are too mediocre, and you can always use day fighters on Night CAP. Granted, you don't get the NF bonus, but you have lots of day fighter groups with good planes.

As you can see, Randy is the only decent night fighter you get, and it won't arrive until late '45 without a lot of work. That effort is much better spent on getting the A7M which is FAR more useful in your general war effort. 18x30 RnD will have the A7Ms showing up in '44 when you really need it. It's a naval fighter that can beat the F6F and meet the f4U and in PDU ON you can far greater numbers than either allied fighter. Bottom liner: game changer. Randy is nice, but in no way is it ever a game changer because you cannot deploy enough of them.

* I do build all (most) of the models as they arrive, I just don't expend much effort in getting them early.



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/17/2019 3:24:09 AM)

Well good advice everyone, that is why I asked.
Pax how soon do you have to have 18 factories?
I spent the last hour reviewing my R+D. I can do 11 now in 2/42-3/42.



ITAKLinus -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/17/2019 11:13:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I don't research NF's much any more. There are too few groups, the planes are too mediocre, and you can always use day fighters on Night CAP. Granted, you don't get the NF bonus, but you have lots of day fighter groups with good planes.

As you can see, Randy is the only decent night fighter you get, and it won't arrive until late '45 without a lot of work. That effort is much better spent on getting the A7M which is FAR more useful in your general war effort. 18x30 RnD will have the A7Ms showing up in '44 when you really need it. It's a naval fighter that can beat the F6F and meet the f4U and in PDU ON you can far greater numbers than either allied fighter. Bottom liner: game changer. Randy is nice, but in no way is it ever a game changer because you cannot deploy enough of them.

* I do build all (most) of the models as they arrive, I just don't expend much effort in getting them early.



Agree completely.

In the early game I use various models in NF roles against those pesky B17s and in general I do pretty well.

I tend to defend very few locations and I mass AA as well.

For example, I am currently (May-42) defending Magwe with massed AA (20 units of different sizes and calibres) and I use a mixture of Nates and Nick as NFs.
Nicks are quite good since they can actually shot down or badly damage B17s, while their durability allows them not to receive continuosly the "driven off by defensive gunfire..." message.

Nates... Well, I'm a stingy b@stard and I use them extensively in semi-suicide roles with horrible pilots. They're the epitome of the "cannon fodder" concept. I even keep producing them until I finish engines. They're role is just to disturb bombers' formations.
I also use them in airfield attack during sieges to soak up AA shots from the enemy. Quite funnily, they are performing unreasonably well in this role.
In the last month of siege of Sidney I set them at 10.000ft and they have huge numbers of "damaged" planes, but few destroyed outright. I guess it's something due to their agility and dimension. Or whatever.



As the game goes on, I keep avoiding proper NF R&D. The problem is given chiefly by B29s, which are indeed a PITA. However, regarding R&D, I am a great proponent of the theory of "go big or go home". Said in other words, either I research intensively one model or I don't research it at all.
I find that the tradeoffs of heavy R&D over NFs is actually too much.
The Dinah comes relatively early but it's finally a piece of crap. Randy is amazing but comes very late.
What to do then?

I think that investing more in game-changer planes is much more useful than having some planes accelerated few months. For example, the afromentioned Sam is quite a big deal. Same goes with Frank-a (or, eventually, -b). Not to speak about other models such as the Shinden or the KI94II.




Again, I am an advocate of "no R&D on NFs", but I don't want to mislead anyone. I am not an expert player. It's just the reasoning behind my decision of going big(er) on something else.



On a side note, has anyone tried Tojo-III (the one with the 2x40mm) in any kind of role? I am considering to field some groups equipped with it.
I generally use groups of 12 planes for Nicks and 42 for whatever 1E IJAAF fighter I am eploying, but I'd like to try those 40mm. They'll be disappointing, I guess, but who knows... I see this plane as worth a try for a supporting NF role.



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/18/2019 12:19:56 AM)

Yes I have been away from the game for quite some time. Not sure of the long term implications of choices made early.
Looking over my current R+D plan, it's not bad, but could have been better from the start.
Some early 'mistakes' are standing out now, such as multiple factories on one air frame. I should have kept them single.
However going back to what Pax had asked, I was planning for early victory, which seems I am on the road to.
If memory serves me correctly, I only made it to the end of 42 once, started a PBEM, player quit and then I walked away from the game.
Also RL played a part also.
I suppose now I will have to decide on a restart, def a harder scenario, now that I have ironed out most of my wrinkles in the brain.
If anyone knows of any good AAR's, with a good R+D setup, please let me know.
Particularly F's. Still uncertain as to how many and what for early, mid.
Current game I'm heavily invested in the Frank, George and the Ki-83.
Other questions that still have me pondering:
Recon, Helen, Grace, Peggy.



Chickenboy -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/18/2019 5:17:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

If anyone knows of any good AAR's, with a good R+D setup, please let me know.
Particularly F's. Still uncertain as to how many and what for early, mid.
Current game I'm heavily invested in the Frank, George and the Ki-83.
Other questions that still have me pondering:
Recon, Helen, Grace, Peggy.


Mike Solli's AAR (probably buried now) has some good discussions about plane research during setup. See if you can find it.

For my IJAAF, I'm taking advantage of the research tree 'bonus' by pulling forward the Ki-44-IIc into 1942. I'm using the Tony bonus to similarly pull forward the Ki-100-I a good year and a half early. Otherwise, Ki-84a/r is my other IJAAF fighter focus for 1943 (late) and beyond.

For IJNAF carriers, I'm going for A6M5c early-mid-war fighter and then A7 later in the war. George and Jack/Raiden will also be produced in number. Of course, in Sc. 2 the George and Jack aren't carrier capable, but you can find some mods that will let them be carrier capable. [;)]

For IJNAF strike planes, I'm pushing for D4Y3/4 ASAP, B6N1/2 at a more modest clip and (later) Grace. Peggy(T) is represented, but to a modest amount.



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/19/2019 10:37:36 AM)

Appreciate your comments CB. My setup is actually not far off. However I did write off the Tony, Jack completely so I'm glad you commented.
Having said all that, I know, CB, or believe I read that you only play Scen2. Well me too. However, in my current 'refresh my brain game' I am
just doing too well all over the map. I'm even paying PP's and China is going great.
I'm thinking of restarting a game playing the Iron man 17 nasty(1). I ran a turn just to look at data, and it is based off Scen 1.
With only time for an AI game, any thoughts or other suggestions on a scenario?
Here is my current R+D. See any other glaring mistakes?



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/19/2019 10:38:30 AM)

Yes I realize some of the 'tree' mistakes made and NF's(Pax)

[image]local://upfiles/20521/723E9E32AC9B4DACB1D4A44C6CDD1DED.jpg[/image]



PaxMondo -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/19/2019 11:15:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Yes I realize some of the 'tree' mistakes made and NF's(Pax)



Not mistakes, just learning to see/formulate better strategies and better tactics.



obvert -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/19/2019 12:47:43 PM)

There are a lot of people getting down on Japanese NFs and I just don't agree. [;)]

A lot depends on how you use them, how you match them with flak and radar in bases, and especially what pilots you put in them. I don't care about whether they're one engine or two because these are the only reasons some of my engine factories and HI are still functioning.

I have 2.5 million HI in Dec 45 but could really use more resources and supplies, and Nf are the guardians of the industry for the last two years of the game. Make the best, regardless of cost, and put the best pilots in them.

IJNAF:

J1N1-Sa: This is the best performing IJNAF NF in game, and I am still seeing it get solid kills in Dec 45. One of my pilots is a 22 kill ace in this plane! The radar is the difference and still lets them target even B-29s.

J1N1-S: Good early NF and keeps things afloat until better arrive.

C6N1-S Myrt: This is the second best IJNAF NF and gets some kills BUT is fragile and you end up losing more pilots/airframes.

P1Y2-S: The Frances works because of it's extra durability as well as radar and decent speed. I use this I concert with the others at bigger bases. Takes some hits and keeps on ticking.


A6M5d-S: Useful to resize NF groups on CVs and if you're in need of NF in small bases with little support. Otherwise it's an ace-maker for HB pilots.

D4Y2-Y: Same as above.

S1A1: Too late.


IJAAF:

Ki-45 KAId: You have to make this as some BIG NF groups only use this plane. It's good but not great and without radar needs numbers.

Ki-102c: The best NF by a good margin. Even in small numbers this baby is a beast. I would make another RnD factory for this next time around to get it even a few months earlier. It's that important.

Ki-109-I: Not great.

Ki-46 KAI: Not as good as I'd hoped. Don't bother. Just make the Nick and hope the Randy comes soon.


Ki-102b: As a FB you can make a lot of these, and convert a lot of groups to use them. Not as good as a true NF but durable with good armament and does help. Numbers are the key, but you will lose a lot more of these than dedicated NF.

For this reason I DON'T use other 1E fighters in an NF role. It's too much of a pilot and airframe bleed, and that is a supply bleed in the late war too, so I'm not interested. I'd rather keep more 2E going which are much more effective and durable and I don't have to replace nearly as often, even though there is a higher cost.

Here is the list of Nf groups possible. There are more than most realise.



[image]local://upfiles/37283/99F21F9DC0914AD2B73EED1AF0567827.jpg[/image]



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/20/2019 2:55:09 AM)

Hey Thanks for stopping in Obvert. I actually spent my night reading your AAR. (wed).
I am considering all options and advice given. But the biggest decision is what scenario
to restart. With limited time, it's such a huge decision for me. I poured a lot of hours into
my current game, but it seems to be to easy. Oh well, it was a nice refresh I suppose.



PaxMondo -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/20/2019 3:09:35 AM)

I agree with all of obverts assessments in terms of which AC models work and which not so much. Note the J1N1 is one of your first NF's to arrive. To clarify, I've never said I don't build them, I do. I build quite a few of them. I keep the pools always will above what is being used. I just don't put RnD into them other than the factory which will build them.



Chickenboy -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/20/2019 3:05:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Appreciate your comments CB. My setup is actually not far off. However I did write off the Tony, Jack completely so I'm glad you commented.
Having said all that, I know, CB, or believe I read that you only play Scen2. Well me too. However, in my current 'refresh my brain game' I am
just doing too well all over the map. I'm even paying PP's and China is going great.
I'm thinking of restarting a game playing the Iron man 17 nasty(1). I ran a turn just to look at data, and it is based off Scen 1.
With only time for an AI game, any thoughts or other suggestions on a scenario?
Here is my current R+D. See any other glaring mistakes?



Hanzberger,

I don't use tracker, so I'm at a loss to interpret the spreadsheet screenshot that you provided. Can you put that in 'laymans terms' for the likes of me? [:)]

I don't have as much late war experience as others that have posted here, so I have to rely on Kentucky windage and what seems like it's an efficient use of research / engine bonuses for pulling forward. I'm not really sold on the Jack and there's many players that swear by the either/or development of the George versus the Jack. I hear the argument, but the J2M5 looks really good on paper and is-in my mind- a source of diversification. I could be wrong, as I've not made it late war. Time will tell. But I've not seen enough arguments against the Ki-100-I that weigh against the use of the Tony line for late-war Tony models as diversification away from the Frank. If I can pull a very good 1945 airframe into the latter half of 1943, doesn't that augur for doing so? In my mind, it does. But I'm still interested in weighing arguments another way.

My last 4 PBEMs have been scenario 2. I've not played other mods. The last time I played a Sc. 1 game was in 2010-11, IIRC. So, yeah-I only play Sc.2 in recent history.



obvert -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/20/2019 10:33:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Appreciate your comments CB. My setup is actually not far off. However I did write off the Tony, Jack completely so I'm glad you commented.
Having said all that, I know, CB, or believe I read that you only play Scen2. Well me too. However, in my current 'refresh my brain game' I am
just doing too well all over the map. I'm even paying PP's and China is going great.
I'm thinking of restarting a game playing the Iron man 17 nasty(1). I ran a turn just to look at data, and it is based off Scen 1.
With only time for an AI game, any thoughts or other suggestions on a scenario?
Here is my current R+D. See any other glaring mistakes?



Hanzberger,

I don't use tracker, so I'm at a loss to interpret the spreadsheet screenshot that you provided. Can you put that in 'laymans terms' for the likes of me? [:)]

I don't have as much late war experience as others that have posted here, so I have to rely on Kentucky windage and what seems like it's an efficient use of research / engine bonuses for pulling forward. I'm not really sold on the Jack and there's many players that swear by the either/or development of the George versus the Jack. I hear the argument, but the J2M5 looks really good on paper and is-in my mind- a source of diversification. I could be wrong, as I've not made it late war. Time will tell. But I've not seen enough arguments against the Ki-100-I that weigh against the use of the Tony line for late-war Tony models as diversification away from the Frank. If I can pull a very good 1945 airframe into the latter half of 1943, doesn't that augur for doing so? In my mind, it does. But I'm still interested in weighing arguments another way.

My last 4 PBEMs have been scenario 2. I've not played other mods. The last time I played a Sc. 1 game was in 2010-11, IIRC. So, yeah-I only play Sc.2 in recent history.


The J2M5 is very good, but the N1K5 is just that much better. They seem virtually the same on paper, but the one glaring difference is the 2 x 12.7cm CL MG of the George. Those seem to make all the difference as a sweeper, getting that bit of damage on planes consistently.

After years of hoping to find more and better uses for the Ki-100, I tend to agree that they're just not that good and service 3 be damned, I'd rather have more Franks sooner. For your service 1 just keep using Tojo Iic until they run out. The way I play the Oscar IV is also useful, but it's not for everyone. :)




Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 12:10:47 AM)

Wait a minute, CB you don't have late war experience? I know I've been gone for quite a few years but I find that hard to believe. Are you shredding your opponents or are they just running for dem dare heeills?
Just to clarify, the Ki-100 has a SR of 1.The 61 Ic has a SR of 3. Having said that I'm gonna go with Obvert on this one.
From my previous post above, I completely skipped the Jack and Tony. I was hoping to get by on the Tojo and Oscars until the Franks arrived. I wasn't sure about the Oscars when I set it up but I wanted the range. Obvert has clarified my thoughts.
Oh BTW I messed up the Giken on the chart, it's SR is 4.
Anyone have any experience with the KI-83?
RECON: IN my refresh my brain game, it seemed the Dinah was breaking down a lot. So much so I went back to the Babs.
Any thoughts on Recon?



Chickenboy -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 1:24:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Wait a minute, CB you don't have late war experience? I know I've been gone for quite a few years but I find that hard to believe. Are you shredding your opponents or are they just running for dem dare heeills?


No. Mostly they're dying. Literally. 3 of my last 4 CG PBEM partners are either confirmed goners or are strongly suspected to have snuffed it during our game. [:(]

quote:


Just to clarify, the Ki-100 has a SR of 1.The 61 Ic has a SR of 3. Having said that I'm gonna go with Obvert on this one.
From my previous post above, I completely skipped the Jack and Tony. I was hoping to get by on the Tojo and Oscars until the Franks arrived. I wasn't sure about the Oscars when I set it up but I wanted the range. Obvert has clarified my thoughts.
Oh BTW I messed up the Giken on the chart, it's SR is 4.
Anyone have any experience with the KI-83?


Yeah, several late / terminal war games with this. It's supposed to be good.

quote:


RECON: IN my refresh my brain game, it seemed the Dinah was breaking down a lot. So much so I went back to the Babs.
Any thoughts on Recon?


Big fan of the Dinah-III with the extended normal range.



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 3:21:54 AM)

Ok I will give her another shot. That range does look juicy.



ITAKLinus -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 10:22:09 AM)

Oh yes, just for clarification: as Pax, I don't R&D NFs, but I produce them in good numbers.


Regarding other planes cited:

- Dinah-III: wonderful plane, I even R&D it. It's just perfect to fill gaps in low-priority areas in which you want to be covered but you don't want to invest more precious assets. Its 23 hexes in extended are almost as many as Mavis 25, but the low SR means it's much easier to keep those Dinah-III in the air. Also, there are many groups.

- Tony: I don't like it and I am for massive production of few models. I skip it completely.

- Tojo: I like the plane and it's better than the Oscar, but I generally equip few groups for sweeps and nothing more. Its armament is too little to damage heavy allied fighters or bombers. Some R&D on it.

- Oscar: my love. I love Oscars and I produce billions of them. Losses are generally huge. I love their agility, good armament (2x20mm and the 20mm have a very different feeling from the 12.7mm) and not so much inferior speed compared to Frank. Range is amazingly good and they carry a good payload. Especially for those who emply extensively low layered CAPs (and I'm a huge fan of them), Oscar is very good. At least, that's me. Heavy R&D on it in order to have the -IV ASAP.

- Frank: for the first time I am trying to research Frank-b directly instead of doing Frank-a and then Frank-r. It's the only plane capable of fighting back allied late war beasts. It's fast, well armed and with decent survivability. Definitely love it. Frank-b comes online much later and is not blessed by a common line with Frank-a, therefore I strongly advice against R&D on it.

- Nick: I like the plane in most of its variants. It's a very good gap filler to fight bombers and it uses Ha-35, of which I have a surplus production when I phase out A6M2-Zeros and Lilys. No R&D over it from my side.

- Nate: I keep producing it until I run out of engines. I use them as cannon fodder.

- Judy: Heavy R&D on it in order to accelerate as much as I can the first model so that I can then easily and quickly have the Judy-IV, which is a wonderful plane. Heavy payload, good range and decent stats. Definitely love it.

- Jill: I don't research it. Kate 1/2 are just good enough until the Jill comes online "naturally". As the game goes on, I tend to lower the amount of TBs on my CVs and I increase the number of DBs. It's something questionable, but it fits my general strategy and my doctrine, so I might be wrong for less extravagant postures.

- Peggy(T): I massively R&D them. It's another situational plane. It suits my doctrine and strategy, so I need it. I don't know whether less extreme players are willing to do the same, doubt so. I love it, even if results have always been modest.

- Helen: I R&D it with 3 factories on Helen-Ia, rushing the -IIa. I produce huge numbers of LB 2Es until the end/mid-43 and I like to have Helen-IIa ASAP. Reasoning is quite straightforward: it uses Ha-34, simplifying my production lines and it has a normal range of 11 hexes, precisely the distance between Hankow (AF lvl 9) and Chungking, so I need those guys soon in order to support my attacks on Chinese capital.

- Sam: I R&D it little. I generally add factories over the course of 42 as soon as I finish other projects, increasing over time the number of factories dedicated to the model. It's a sort of game changes since it gives your embarked fighters some kind of fighting capabilities against allied ones.

- Jack: R&D it for the first time in my current PBEM. I generally go for George, but I wanted to give a try to Jack. I produced them in very limited numbers in the past and they gave me a very good feeling in CAP. I tend to say they are better than George in CAP and much worse in all the other possible missions. I have nothing more than a feeling to say that they're better than George in CAP, though.

- George: best IJNAF fighter available and a must for every player. It's a wonderful plane and it can make the enemy suffer a lot.

- Late late war fighters: I don't R&D them at all. I did a game in which I massively R&D Ki-94-II but I was just mad.




In general, I tend to employ extensively low layered CAPs and I adjust my production for that. Also, I am of the opinion that HIs are not such a problematic factor, therefore I am quite open to have very bloody fights in which I lose many planes. That's why I produce huge numbers of Oscars, for example. I'm definitely the king of air losses, though. And I have weird strategic and doctrinal postures, so I know my choices are questionable.



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 1:00:52 PM)

Wow what a huge mistake on my part about the Frank. Why ppl have not scolded me for that? I will have to edit my post as I no longer have that original file. [:@]
Looking over things over until late last night, the george does not have many groups. Am I missing something here?
Currently only putting them on 3 factories.
I too am going for stream line tactics.



obvert -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 1:03:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Ok I will give her another shot. That range does look juicy.


The Dinah III was coveted by the Luftwaffe and for good reason. Fast, long range, very good recon plane or for naval search.

The Ki-83 is your best sweeper. Period. It's got 10/13 range, great CL mounted guns, and is very fast with a great max altitude.



obvert -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 1:20:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Oh yes, just for clarification: as Pax, I don't R&D NFs, but I produce them in good numbers.


Regarding other planes cited:

- Tojo: I like the plane and it's better than the Oscar, but I generally equip few groups for sweeps and nothing more. Its armament is too little to damage heavy allied fighters or bombers. Some R&D on it.



You don't differentiate models!!

The Ki-44 IIc has much better armament and is a great CAP plane with incredible climb, which of course is essential for CAP. It also has armour so your pilots fare much better.

quote:



- Frank: for the first time I am trying to research Frank-b directly instead of doing Frank-a and then Frank-r. It's the only plane capable of fighting back allied late war beasts. It's fast, well armed and with decent survivability. Definitely love it. Frank-b comes online much later and is not blessed by a common line with Frank-a, therefore I strongly advice against R&D on it.



I don't mind it's not on the same path. Get the Ki-84b as it's your best late war bomber killer. The CL 20mm do wonders. Also, it has longer range in my stock game due to having drop tanks, where the Ki-84r doesn't get them fo some reason. Throw 2 x 30 RnD on it.

quote:




- Sam: I R&D it little. I generally add factories over the course of 42 as soon as I finish other projects, increasing over time the number of factories dedicated to the model. It's a sort of game changes since it gives your embarked fighters some kind of fighting capabilities against allied ones.



One of the most important RnD projects for me as if you can get it in mid 44 it's still able to change the outcome of Allied progress.

quote:



- Jack: R&D it for the first time in my current PBEM. I generally go for George, but I wanted to give a try to Jack. I produced them in very limited numbers in the past and they gave me a very good feeling in CAP. I tend to say they are better than George in CAP and much worse in all the other possible missions. I have nothing more than a feeling to say that they're better than George in CAP, though.



Again, the different models are very different. The first J2M2 has incredible climb in a CAP role. The second J2M3 is service 2 and comes earlier usually than the N1K2. The J2M5 is a late war killer on CAP and in some exporting duties does well. It's limited as a sweeper compared tot eh George though.

quote:



In general, I tend to employ extensively low layered CAPs and I adjust my production for that. Also, I am of the opinion that HIs are not such a problematic factor, therefore I am quite open to have very bloody fights in which I lose many planes. That's why I produce huge numbers of Oscars, for example. I'm definitely the king of air losses, though. And I have weird strategic and doctrinal postures, so I know my choices are questionable.


The issue with lots of lost planes is not HI but pilots. Not your pilots only, but the allied pilots. The more masses of losses you take the more the Allies get better and better aces. Tehn you're stuck eventually in a downward spiral.

By mid-43 I want most battles to be over my bases, to have numerical superiority, and to win them. I want to lose half as many pilots as the Allies and get twice as many kills. Then the ratio starts going toward winning those battles more and more in spite of better and better Allied airframes.

Conversely, as Allies, I don't use my air forces unless I need to, and then I try to overwhelm a position to the point I can hit a lot of planes on the ground and get the fields very damaged, lowering morale of any CAP coming up the next day.



ITAKLinus -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 5:23:25 PM)

Tojo/Oscars: I am talking about Tojo-IIc and Oscar-IV. Final models. Tojo is researched directly to the Tojo-IIc, which is the only one going into production. For Oscar, my cannon fodder for mid to late game, I do research each model since I generally make one big factory of 100 Oscars on 7th DEC and I want to keep it active upgrading it. I tend to produce Oscar-Ic and Oscar-IV only, but I R&D each model so that I can upgrade the factory.


Frank-b. I agree with you. However, learning from my previous games, I came to the conclusion that Frank-a and then Frank-r is much more viable than Frank-b directly only. I had very hard times waiting from Frank-b. Eventually, have you tried to go for Frank-a/-r AND -b with good results? And, if so, how much have you invested? I have never done both with good results.


Jack/George: I go for one of the two only and directly to the last model. I prefer the George, but, as said, for CAP duties I have good feelings for Jacks. In line of principle, I tend to spare as much as I can IJNAF groups, therefore it's the IJAAF which takes the brunt of heavy air fights. I prefer George precisely because they are good sweepers and I like to use IJNAF groups for sweeps, leaving continuous (and bloody) operations to the army, which represents roughly 90% of the CAPs I set up after the end of 1942.


Sam: I have have very very good results in delaying the research of it. I put something like 3x30 on 7-dec and I add more and more factories during '42. I feel it's a good compromise for me.
I tried different configurations of R&D for embarked fighters. Have never been completely satisfied.



In general, when I pick R&D for mid and late fighters, I think almost only to CAP duties. That's why I am quite open to big losses in airframes: they explode on my bases. [:D][:D][:D][:D]. I use top-notch pilots for sweep missions and the rest of the crowd takes care of CAP. Never had a real problems in keeping IJAAF pilots in the skies. Got several shortages of IJNAF pilots, though.


I confess that many of my experiences come from trial and error, so I can speak only about what I have done and what I feel I should have done.

Also, I have quite a weird combination of strategy/doctrine. Last but not least, I strongly favour skipping intermediate models putting into production final ones. Industrially and logistically speaking, it's much easier to manage the whole production system (for example, if you pass directly from Oscar-Ic to Oscar-IV, you drastically reduce problems in stock management).



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 6:02:05 PM)

Obvert, what do you fill the gap with between Oscars, Tojo to Frank?
Currently planning my next game, R+D first, and I am heavy on the FrankB from the Tojo and Oscars and nothing in between. Is this a mistake? I plan to keep researching the Oscar and Tojo until the better models, also producing as I go. I just don't like the Tony.
I'm glad you guys are helping me, I will have to divide the Frank B's and produce the A.
Any suggestion on # of factories for each?



obvert -> RE: IJFB R+D question (12/21/2019 6:25:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Tojo/Oscars: I am talking about Tojo-IIc and Oscar-IV. Final models. Tojo is researched directly to the Tojo-IIc, which is the only one going into production. For Oscar, my cannon fodder for mid to late game, I do research each model since I generally make one big factory of 100 Oscars on 7th DEC and I want to keep it active upgrading it. I tend to produce Oscar-Ic and Oscar-IV only, but I R&D each model so that I can upgrade the factory.


Frank-b. I agree with you. However, learning from my previous games, I came to the conclusion that Frank-a and then Frank-r is much more viable than Frank-b directly only. I had very hard times waiting from Frank-b. Eventually, have you tried to go for Frank-a/-r AND -b with good results? And, if so, how much have you invested? I have never done both with good results.


Jack/George: I go for one of the two only and directly to the last model. I prefer the George, but, as said, for CAP duties I have good feelings for Jacks. In line of principle, I tend to spare as much as I can IJNAF groups, therefore it's the IJAAF which takes the brunt of heavy air fights. I prefer George precisely because they are good sweepers and I like to use IJNAF groups for sweeps, leaving continuous (and bloody) operations to the army, which represents roughly 90% of the CAPs I set up after the end of 1942.


Sam: I have have very very good results in delaying the research of it. I put something like 3x30 on 7-dec and I add more and more factories during '42. I feel it's a good compromise for me.
I tried different configurations of R&D for embarked fighters. Have never been completely satisfied.



In general, when I pick R&D for mid and late fighters, I think almost only to CAP duties. That's why I am quite open to big losses in airframes: they explode on my bases. [:D][:D][:D][:D]. I use top-notch pilots for sweep missions and the rest of the crowd takes care of CAP. Never had a real problems in keeping IJAAF pilots in the skies. Got several shortages of IJNAF pilots, though.


I confess that many of my experiences come from trial and error, so I can speak only about what I have done and what I feel I should have done.

Also, I have quite a weird combination of strategy/doctrine. Last but not least, I strongly favour skipping intermediate models putting into production final ones. Industrially and logistically speaking, it's much easier to manage the whole production system (for example, if you pass directly from Oscar-Ic to Oscar-IV, you drastically reduce problems in stock management).



You must not have much competition in the mid-game!!

I can't imagine not getting any intermediate models in the most important parts of the war, in late 42 through 43. I want to punish the allies I that stretch to help push back their advance as long as possible.

In my current game I spent on both, and got the first Frank-a in Nov 43. This is a look at my RnD at that point in the war.

The Elephant Vanishes R & D



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.863281