Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 1:11:42 AM   
Sun Tempest

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 9/14/2010
Status: offline 		Looking at tracker it seems that B5M1 is faster (cruise speed especially), more maneuverable and uses the Ha-33 engine which has a lower demand early in the game, unlike Kate's Ha-35. On the other hand, it has significantly lower endurance (if I'm not wrong it means that is able to make fewer attack runs) and an rating of 2 (which may be a issue).

So, is it really worth it to build Kate or instead I should concentrate on the "ahistorically" better Mable?

< Message edited by Sun Tempest -- 3/16/2011 1:14:02 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 1:50:23 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		Very Interesting Question.

IRL, the Mabel was an inferior performing plane, quickly relegated to shore duty and then trainers and kamikazes; however, the game specs make her fairly equal to the Kate with some definitive advantages. Combine that with PDU and you could use this plane during 42. I dont play empire enough to really answer this question, yet I too am curious if any JFB has a more informed opinion...It seems to be about which one or two attributes you hold most important.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Sun Tempest)
Post #: 2
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 2:40:08 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		I have nothing to say any more.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 3/18/2011 5:00:34 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 3
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 4:19:25 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		I build Kates for frontline service, but use all available engines to produce the Mabels.  I'm banking them for Kamikazes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 4
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 1:10:01 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The biggest problem with the Mabel is that it has a service rating of 2 versus the Kate's 1.

I use the existing Mabels for land based torpedo squadrons and training and build Kates for CV use. I do not want to be waiting for my Mabels to repair, I want my Kates to attack as soon as possible.




does this really matter for torpedo bombers? My Helldivers got a service rating of three and it doesn´t matter. For fighters it would perhaps matter more but even then I don´t have a problem with fighters with a service rating of 2.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 5
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 1:36:12 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Does the Mabel factory upgrade?

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 6
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 2:06:49 PM   
snuffl

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 10/5/2002
Status: offline 		No, don't think so (as far as Tracker tells me ...)

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 7
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 2:42:42 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		I'm with Andy M on this.  Mabel isn't bad, but since both Mabel and Kate start with no factories choose the best one.  Little difference except the SR.  Engines are moot as you have to expand both anyway, and most don't build 200/month of these anyway.  I take the Kate with PDU on.  PDU off, even easier as your Ha-35 demand is a lot lower.  You can't put everything to Oscar (because a lot of groups don't upgrade from Nate) so your Ha-35 demand is a non factor.

As Castor points out though, if you HAD to use Mabel in the game I doubt that there would be much difference.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 3/16/2011 2:44:16 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to snuffl)
Post #: 8
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 3:56:10 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The biggest problem with the Mabel is that it has a service rating of 2 versus the Kate's 1.

I use the existing Mabels for land based torpedo squadrons and training and build Kates for CV use. I do not want to be waiting for my Mabels to repair, I want my Kates to attack as soon as possible.




does this really matter for torpedo bombers? My Helldivers got a service rating of three and it doesn´t matter. For fighters it would perhaps matter more but even then I don´t have a problem with fighters with a service rating of 2.


For the typical carrier fight that takes place in 42-43, probably not. Later in the war when the Allies should be doing more extended operations such as supressing airfields and raiding then yes. However, the helldiver get progressively better service ratings as newer types come on line so it should not matter much. I don't think the mable is going to make much difference. Both are easily shot down.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 9
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/16/2011 3:58:39 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline 		Mabel isn't worth it considering early on you are going for G3M Nells which need the Ha-33 engine, where you will most likely be producing Ha-35 engines which Jills I believe need.


_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 10
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/17/2011 1:28:52 AM   
Sun Tempest

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 9/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Mabel isn't worth it considering early on you are going for G3M Nells which need the Ha-33 engine, where you will most likely be producing Ha-35 engines which Jills I believe need.



I beg to differ

The only major aircrafts that use Ha-33 from beginning are D3A1 Val,G3M2 (worse than the G4M1) E13A1 and B5M1, as well as Mavis and Tina. G3M3 (which seems to be better than G4M1) enters production in May 42. So until May 42, demand for Ha-33 engines is rather small.
On the other hand, Ha-35 is used by from start by Ki-43 Oscar series, A6M Zero series, B5N2 Kate, Ki-48 Lilly, and later by Ki-45 Nick and Ki-56 Thalia, while the production lines for Oscar and Zero continue, although the peak of demand for Ha-35 is in the first year of the war.

Further more, with a better maneuverability and much higher cruise speed, Mabel should be tougher, with the only disadvantage being the lower endurance and some what the higher service rating.
So, how important endurance really is?

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 11
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/17/2011 6:40:43 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline 		I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!


(in reply to Sun Tempest)
Post #: 12
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/17/2011 11:58:31 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!





You can?

I can't. Though against an essentially absent Japanese defence I probably have about 60-75% up time on B25D1s.

...this doesn't matter when you have 120 of them though.

_____________________________


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 13
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/17/2011 12:25:57 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Neither can I. You might be able to if you're still using the 8 plane squadrons with 4 planes in reserve and even then I wouldn't bet on getting full squadrons in the air. No way you'll be able to do it with the 12 plane squadrons.

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 14
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/17/2011 10:14:25 PM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!




This isn't my experience with b-17's. Flying b-17's out of townsville and bombing rabaul (pretty much max range for b-17 F's) I have to stand them down for three or four days between runs if I don't want to end up with half the squadrons repairing and unsustainable ops losses. A joint port strike between b-17's based at townsville and port moresby and b-24's at townsville along with carrier AC vs fairly heavy oscar and zero coverage at rabaul also saw a bunch of bombers shot down. Hardly the unstoppable fighter killer that gets moaned about on these forums. I still bombed the crap out of the port, but if I kept up that sort of activity long I would run out of bombers fairly quickly.

Heck, p-38's with a service rating of 3 see a noticeable reduction in squadron strength if you try to use them for extended periods.

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 15
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 9:22:19 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni
Heck, p-38's with a service rating of 3 see a noticeable reduction in squadron strength if you try to use them for extended periods.


If you leave P38s on CAP at say, 30% CAP, you'll run them into the ground fairly fast.

With P38s you either have to rely on radar, or just use them for sweeps rather than CAP. Thats what they are best at anyway. So I tend to use P40s for CAP, P38s and P47s when you get them for sweeping.

The P40K and P40N are not the best but are generally adequate for base defence in 1943, I find.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 16
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 10:53:14 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I love the "service rating" argument. Service rating means exactly SQUAT. B-17 has a service rating of 4, yet I manage to put full squadrons in the air every single day flying max rage into heavy CAP. And getting about a 30:1 kill ratio to boot.

Service rating!! The sky is falling!! Service rating!!




This isn't my experience with b-17's. Flying b-17's out of townsville and bombing rabaul (pretty much max range for b-17 F's) I have to stand them down for three or four days between runs if I don't want to end up with half the squadrons repairing and unsustainable ops losses. A joint port strike between b-17's based at townsville and port moresby and b-24's at townsville along with carrier AC vs fairly heavy oscar and zero coverage at rabaul also saw a bunch of bombers shot down. Hardly the unstoppable fighter killer that gets moaned about on these forums. I still bombed the crap out of the port, but if I kept up that sort of activity long I would run out of bombers fairly quickly.

Heck, p-38's with a service rating of 3 see a noticeable reduction in squadron strength if you try to use them for extended periods.


I can do the same run with B-17Es - every single day - with zero reduction in aircraft. Course Im flying from a level 6 airfield with 75,000 supplies and 250+ av support. And I suspect THAT is the difference.

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 17
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 11:31:47 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2
I can do the same run with B-17Es - every single day - with zero reduction in aircraft. Course Im flying from a level 6 airfield with 75,000 supplies and 250+ av support. And I suspect THAT is the difference.


Probably, supply makes the world go around.

Though extremely long range bombing runs (Townsville - Rabaul) and being shot up by CAP over the target certainly won't help, there'll be masses of ops losses flying home such a distance.

In 1943 I have barely enough aviation support in most of my bases, so I don't think plunking down four times what you need is generally a solution though.

_____________________________


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 18
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 12:02:34 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline 		4 times what you need? Level 6 airfield can operate 300 aircraft. 250 is EXACTLY what you need. 8 squadrons of 12 each = 96 aircraft. 96 aircraft times 4 engines = 250+. What am I missing?

As for why you are so short on av support I suspect that is because you didnt bother to pull any out of the DEI / PI.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 19
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 12:05:24 PM   
Yakface


Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

What am I missing?



Number of engines only matters for working out whether an airfields is over stacked not for the amount of AV required by the base. Each plane only requires 1 AV no matter how many engines it has.

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 20
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 12:53:38 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I suspect CV2 is trolling. I wasn't able to fly 4Es units at their full strength with less than 2 days of rest for 1 say of combat missions even from a size 9 airfield with an Air HQ (for unlimited stacking, although the number of groups was lower than 9 + HQ radius anyway) and over 250 air support (which counts as unlimited air support).

(in reply to Yakface)
Post #: 21
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 12:57:37 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

If you leave P38s on CAP at say, 30% CAP, you'll run them into the ground fairly fast.

I never had. 30-40% CAP left them just fine. Then again, I only had them operating from my best airfields, always with sufficient air support. And also set the percentage for rest (usually 50%).


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 22
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 1:17:26 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2
As for why you are so short on av support I suspect that is because you didnt bother to pull any out of the DEI / PI.




No - it's more because I got so many aircraft!

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 3/18/2011 1:18:18 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 23
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 1:18:34 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Then again, I only had them operating from my best airfields, always with sufficient air support. And also set the percentage for rest (usually 50%).


Yeah, I don't like doing that, that seems to be asking for it.

I tend to set them to 0 or 10% CAP and hope the radar works generally nowadays.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 24
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 1:22:05 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

4 times what you need? Level 6 airfield can operate 300 aircraft.


I don't really pay much attention to the precise number of aircraft, the administrative issue (ie number of groups) is usually the limiting factor on efficiency, I find.

10 squadrons of 12 B24s, plus a couple of squadrons of fighters to protect them, and maybe some USMC Dauntlesses to keep bombardment TFs away, is already nudging up against admin limits unless you stand things down, and I rarely do that. And thats only going to be about 200 aircraft, if that.

Then I find moving them up is a pain in the ass too, as you have to fairly frequently relocate the whole lot as the front line moves forwards, and then with service rating 4 sometimes they take over 20 days to uncrate from an AK...

_____________________________


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 25
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 3:19:56 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

4 times what you need? Level 6 airfield can operate 300 aircraft.


I don't really pay much attention to the precise number of aircraft, the administrative issue (ie number of groups) is usually the limiting factor on efficiency, I find.

10 squadrons of 12 B24s, plus a couple of squadrons of fighters to protect them, and maybe some USMC Dauntlesses to keep bombardment TFs away, is already nudging up against admin limits unless you stand things down, and I rarely do that. And thats only going to be about 200 aircraft, if that.

Then I find moving them up is a pain in the ass too, as you have to fairly frequently relocate the whole lot as the front line moves forwards, and then with service rating 4 sometimes they take over 20 days to uncrate from an AK...


Searches (naval and ASW) can be performed from Palm Island. Put 1 air HQ in there and you can fly 11 groups without any of the BS "admin stacking" problems. 8 B-17s and 3 CAP if you want, although I usually run my CAP out of Charters Towers.

As for "moving up" I guess I dont understand. Are you saying that as YOUR line moves forward you do NOT advance any airplanes with it? 5th and 11th airforce (180 av each) teamed with 1 of them air base units from Java (100 av) each is 250+ (times 2) av in 4 very small units. Plus you have a truckload of 90 av army and 1 (I think) marine av unit that make very good units to land on nearby fields for fighter/naval strike cover. Cant imagine anything EASIER than hop-scotching with these 4 units in dual tandems (plus dragging 2 of the 90 av along for other bases with them since you have at least 4 of these units that I know of).

And again, service rating is a JOKE if you do it my way. But hey, do it any way you want.

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 3/18/2011 3:27:43 PM >

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 26
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 3:49:24 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2
And again, service rating is a JOKE if you do it my way. But hey, do it any way you want.


OK, great master.

Your life is just so worthy of accolade. It is a privilege to be allowed within Your holy sphere so I might bask in the reflected glory of your genius and intellect, while averting my weak eyes, of course, for direct observation of Your splendour risks blindness.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 3/18/2011 3:51:12 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 27
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 4:50:13 PM   
Sun Tempest

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 9/14/2010
Status: offline 		I think that the same service rating for a land base plane is (or can be made) less harsh than the similar service rating of a carrier plane.
At the same time, how important is endurance for planes with a similar attack range?

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 28
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 4:53:49 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		regarding the OP,

1) I don't think service rating 2 is harsh enough to be hugely noticeable even in the worst of times,

2) carrier ops involve short sharp actions for which service rating likely isnt that relevant unless you have day 3 action going on in which case it might make a slight impact. It's more of an issue when you are talking about sustained operations, like P38s on CAP day in, day out

3) Only time Mabels are likely to be flying day in day out is naval search. Just dont use them for naval search and use Vals instead?

_____________________________


(in reply to Sun Tempest)
Post #: 29
RE: B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate - 3/18/2011 5:13:10 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 376
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

regarding the OP,

1) I don't think service rating 2 is harsh enough to be hugely noticeable even in the worst of times,

2) carrier ops involve short sharp actions for which service rating likely isnt that relevant unless you have day 3 action going on in which case it might make a slight impact. It's more of an issue when you are talking about sustained operations, like P38s on CAP day in, day out

3) Only time Mabels are likely to be flying day in day out is naval search. Just dont use them for naval search and use Vals instead?


Why would you use P-38s for CAP? You use your short range fighters for that and use long range planes for escort. As for using Japanese carrier strike aircraft for searching, thats kind of a waste also when your cruisers carry so many Jakes. Dont take up writing advice columns for a living

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> B5M1 Mabel vs. B5N2 Kate Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.406