Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


No... at least not SNLFs. SNLFs are fine light defensive units if they have 80+ exp. and are behind good forts. The Ankei is 60 exp. I would not waste PPs buying it out. I would not waste supply fortifying it, and I would not waste replacements replacing its casualties, unless it was in a crucial position, which it will not be, since it is JUNK... lol.

Boy, you are tough. These units are great for slicing thru the jungle cutting supply lines. Also totally air mobile and with some AT capability mid 43 and later. Great fire brigades; great anti-paratrooper garrisons; great small units that usually are bypassed in heavy bombings especially if something larger is present. Would be too neat if you could combine three of them for a regiment, but alas, no unit is perfect. You undervalue it at your peril!

Here are some more units I will buy out of China. You probably don't like them either. Probably scoff at them. I start with three Armored Car units, and they are pure gold, let me tell you. Off to Atolls for you guys!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

33% hits with torpedoes sounds about right against stationary targets. Almost all your Kates carried torpedoes, hitting 43 times out off 130 dropped. However it would be interesting to run the same attack without the float planes and see if the results are the same.

I think I was getting 18-20 torpedo hits prior to daytime recon; with daytime recon it jumped up to 24 but the runway damage and damaged planes jumped 30 percent.

A lot depends how many 800kg bomb drops there are...the best strike saw 3 BB sunk outright and it had the highest amount of 800 kg bomb drops. Almost all strikes result in 0 BB going down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

33% hits with torpedoes sounds about right against stationary targets. Almost all your Kates carried torpedoes, hitting 43 times out off 130 dropped. However it would be interesting to run the same attack without the float planes and see if the results are the same.

I think I was getting 18-20 torpedo hits prior to daytime recon; with daytime recon it jumped up to 24 but the runway damage and damaged planes jumped 30 percent.

A lot depends how many 800kg bomb drops there are...the best strike saw 3 BB sunk outright and it had the highest amount of 800 kg bomb drops. Almost all strikes result in 0 BB going down.

Playing the Ironman scenarios, I did not use torpedos againt Pearl at all. The flak is just too murderous. In so doing, I discovered that 800 Kg bombs are actually more effective than torpedos at sinking the BBs (and more likely to get magazine explosions). The problem with just setting all bomb attacks in a PBEM is that the damage will be mostly system damage and many of the BBs will still make good speed on the 8th. It will also be hard to sink them with submarines later when they make their move to the West Coast, because they will have less flotation damage.

But for someone who wants to inflict maximum damage with 1 strike, bombs are actually better than torpedos for the Kates. And if you want to sink all 8 against the AI, which anyone can do without much trouble, it is much easier to do it with bombs than torpedos, while the BBs are at Pearl.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

33% hits with torpedoes sounds about right against stationary targets. Almost all your Kates carried torpedoes, hitting 43 times out off 130 dropped. However it would be interesting to run the same attack without the float planes and see if the results are the same.

I think I was getting 18-20 torpedo hits prior to daytime recon; with daytime recon it jumped up to 24 but the runway damage and damaged planes jumped 30 percent.

A lot depends how many 800kg bomb drops there are...the best strike saw 3 BB sunk outright and it had the highest amount of 800 kg bomb drops. Almost all strikes result in 0 BB going down.

Playing the Ironman scenarios, I did not use torpedos againt Pearl at all. The flak is just too murderous. In so doing, I discovered that 800 Kg bombs are actually more effective than torpedos at sinking the BBs (and more likely to get magazine explosions). The problem with just setting all bomb attacks in a PBEM is that the damage will be mostly system damage and many of the BBs will still make good speed on the 8th. It will also be hard to sink them with submarines later when they make their move to the West Coast, because they will have less flotation damage.

But for someone who wants to inflict maximum damage with 1 strike, bombs are actually better than torpedos for the Kates. And if you want to sink all 8 against the AI, which anyone can do without much trouble, it is much easier to do it with bombs than torpedos, while the BBs are at Pearl.

I really disagree. Torpedoes are best for quickly sinking ships, particularly armored ones. There's no guarantee that your Kates will fly with 800kg bombs instead of 2x250kg.

Ironman flak may be a special case, but you could try setting the attack altitude of the Kates to maximum to see if that magically avoids the flak. It's possible that torpedo bombers are still fired at when at 200 feet, but torpedo planes appear to teleport from whatever altitude they were at to 200 feet in order to launch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

The starting IJAAF bomber force. Pretty varied. In PDU on, the temptation is great to standardize on Sally/Helen and perhaps then Peggy.

Let us refresh our memories with some supply calculations:

1. Offensive missions cost maximum load/1000 for bombers
2. Dive and Torpedo bombers are 1 supply per plane per offensive mission

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
3. Search and Escort and Training are 1/3rd a point of supply per plane
4. 12 points of supply to replace a fighter or fighter bomber
5. 30 points to replace a bomber (sonia or helen same price)
6. 270 PP to convert LB to FB; 75 PP to convert LB to MB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


There does seem to be a magic coordination in the Pearl strike, where flying at different altitudes doesn't seem to cause the strike to splinter however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

As someone who has only played Allies, stock scenario, I dread Jap torpedo planes more than bombers. They seem to be more accurate, except in bad weather. Torpedoes also seem to have a greater chance to sink a ship, compared to the same number of bombs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Well, they do make a big gaping hole in the ship below the waterline. Water tends to get in. Water inside the hull tends to sink ships.

Not to state the obvious or anything .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

but nothing beats 200 Helens catching an allied unit sitting in the open. I have killed many allied units (complete destruction) in the open using Helens - mostly in Burma and Oz.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

33% hits with torpedoes sounds about right against stationary targets. Almost all your Kates carried torpedoes, hitting 43 times out off 130 dropped. However it would be interesting to run the same attack without the float planes and see if the results are the same.

I think I was getting 18-20 torpedo hits prior to daytime recon; with daytime recon it jumped up to 24 but the runway damage and damaged planes jumped 30 percent.

A lot depends how many 800kg bomb drops there are...the best strike saw 3 BB sunk outright and it had the highest amount of 800 kg bomb drops. Almost all strikes result in 0 BB going down.

Playing the Ironman scenarios, I did not use torpedos againt Pearl at all. The flak is just too murderous. In so doing, I discovered that 800 Kg bombs are actually more effective than torpedos at sinking the BBs (and more likely to get magazine explosions). The problem with just setting all bomb attacks in a PBEM is that the damage will be mostly system damage and many of the BBs will still make good speed on the 8th. It will also be hard to sink them with submarines later when they make their move to the West Coast, because they will have less flotation damage.

But for someone who wants to inflict maximum damage with 1 strike, bombs are actually better than torpedos for the Kates. And if you want to sink all 8 against the AI, which anyone can do without much trouble, it is much easier to do it with bombs than torpedos, while the BBs are at Pearl.

I really disagree. Torpedoes are best for quickly sinking ships, particularly armored ones. There's no guarantee that your Kates will fly with 800kg bombs instead of 2x250kg.

Ironman flak may be a special case, but you could try setting the attack altitude of the Kates to maximum to see if that magically avoids the flak. It's possible that torpedo bombers are still fired at when at 200 feet, but torpedo planes appear to teleport from whatever altitude they were at to 200 feet in order to launch.

Have to agree with Lok here, and I have played nasty nasty and the Pearl strike is a step to far, if you want to take the SRA, but the problem with assigning a higher altitude to the Kates is the decreased hit rates for those squadrons that do take bombs over torpedoes which I am not sure how the player can influence.

There does seem to be a magic coordination in the Pearl strike, where flying at different altitudes doesn't seem to cause the strike to splinter however.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

33% hits with torpedoes sounds about right against stationary targets. Almost all your Kates carried torpedoes, hitting 43 times out off 130 dropped. However it would be interesting to run the same attack without the float planes and see if the results are the same.

I think I was getting 18-20 torpedo hits prior to daytime recon; with daytime recon it jumped up to 24 but the runway damage and damaged planes jumped 30 percent.

A lot depends how many 800kg bomb drops there are...the best strike saw 3 BB sunk outright and it had the highest amount of 800 kg bomb drops. Almost all strikes result in 0 BB going down.

Playing the Ironman scenarios, I did not use torpedos againt Pearl at all. The flak is just too murderous. In so doing, I discovered that 800 Kg bombs are actually more effective than torpedos at sinking the BBs (and more likely to get magazine explosions). The problem with just setting all bomb attacks in a PBEM is that the damage will be mostly system damage and many of the BBs will still make good speed on the 8th. It will also be hard to sink them with submarines later when they make their move to the West Coast, because they will have less flotation damage.

But for someone who wants to inflict maximum damage with 1 strike, bombs are actually better than torpedos for the Kates. And if you want to sink all 8 against the AI, which anyone can do without much trouble, it is much easier to do it with bombs than torpedos, while the BBs are at Pearl.

I really disagree. Torpedoes are best for quickly sinking ships, particularly armored ones. There's no guarantee that your Kates will fly with 800kg bombs instead of 2x250kg.

Ironman flak may be a special case, but you could try setting the attack altitude of the Kates to maximum to see if that magically avoids the flak. It's possible that torpedo bombers are still fired at when at 200 feet, but torpedo planes appear to teleport from whatever altitude they were at to 200 feet in order to launch.

Have to agree with Lok here, and I have played nasty nasty and the Pearl strike is a step to far, if you want to take the SRA, but the problem with assigning a higher altitude to the Kates is the decreased hit rates for those squadrons that do take bombs over torpedoes which I am not sure how the player can influence.

There does seem to be a magic coordination in the Pearl strike, where flying at different altitudes doesn't seem to cause the strike to splinter however.

Trust me... the Kates take flak at 200 feet if they torpedo on Dec. 7th. It is just that the majority of the U.S. flak is turned off somehow. On Ironman nasty, even with some flak turned off, it is too much for the Kates at 200 feet... really bad... like 18 Kates destroyed and 30 damaged. Now fly in at 12K or 15K... lots of nice bomb hits, usually a magazine explosion, and 1 Kate destroyed, 2 damaged. Much more acceptable. Wash, rinse, and repeat against nasty, and you sink all 8 BBs. The computer makes a break for it on day 4 or 5, I think, so that is the time to use your torpedos. Why not strike Pearl in nasty? Just go slow in the DEI. Use land-based air and move 1 base at a time. It is well worth it to get the Lexington, which starts in Pearl, and 8 BBs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Here is a look at the starting fighter squadrons -- Army.

I feel bad for these guys, as they are going to have a tough time early game.

They will be stuck with the Oscar Ic, until Tony rolls around probably somewhere in mid 42. Even in games where I accelerate the Oscar, Tojo they don't really seem to contribute much thru mid 43 as the Allies really hide a lot so I am hoping the Ic will fill the bill.

By the time I need to defend Magwe, the Tony should be coming online to fill the bill, and perhaps I will have to use the Nick as well.

I have a fair bit of Tony research, and I am pondering now do I accelerate the an early model just to get something in place of Oscar Ic or do I jump straight to the 100-I. By the time the factories repair, I will have the 500 engine bonus for the Ki100 and that is powerful.

The Ki61-d comes with centerline cannons and is one year earlier than the Ki100-I. The Ki61-c also has cannons (f mount)and comes 7 months sooner than the D.

Jumping forward it is past mid 43 for the Frank A to start production. On the Navy side the Jack should start production in very early 1943. So there is a fighter gap say from June 42 to 1943 where the Navy Zeroes & Nick will really have to do quite a bit of work.

I will have one factory of Tojo IIa, and if the air war is quiet perhaps that will be enough to let me jump straight to the Ki100-I and skip all previous versions of the Tony.

As for bomber escorts it is going to be the Oscar Ic for the Army for quite a while.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

What are your thoughts on night fighters and R&D as you go forward? J1N1 seems like the easiest to get early on, but I don't rate it highly. It might not even be worth it considering when massed Allied night attacks might appear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Here is a look at the starting fighter squadrons -- Army.

I feel bad for these guys, as they are going to have a tough time early game.

They will be stuck with the Oscar Ic, until Tony rolls around probably somewhere in mid 42. Even in games where I accelerate the Oscar, Tojo they don't really seem to contribute much thru mid 43 as the Allies really hide a lot so I am hoping the Ic will fill the bill.

By the time I need to defend Magwe, the Tony should be coming online to fill the bill, and perhaps I will have to use the Nick as well.

I have a fair bit of Tony research, and I am pondering now do I accelerate the an early model just to get something in place of Oscar Ic or do I jump straight to the 100-I. By the time the factories repair, I will have the 500 engine bonus for the Ki100 and that is powerful.

The Ki61-d comes with centerline cannons and is one year earlier than the Ki100-I. The Ki61-c also has cannons (f mount)and comes 7 months sooner than the D.

Jumping forward it is past mid 43 for the Frank A to start production. On the Navy side the Jack should start production in very early 1943. So there is a fighter gap say from June 42 to 1943 where the Navy Zeroes & Nick will really have to do quite a bit of work.

I will have one factory of Tojo IIa, and if the air war is quiet perhaps that will be enough to let me jump straight to the Ki100-I and skip all previous versions of the Tony.

As for bomber escorts it is going to be the Oscar Ic for the Army for quite a while.

Don't forget, your Tony factories upgrade through the line for free, and each Tony brings something new. Why not research the line? It seems more supply efficient and gives you a better airforce throughout the war, not just at the end-game.

The first Tony has 2 main problems: range and service rating. As the line progresses, these problems are resolved. The Tony is very good if you can get the better SR and longer range versions into play early.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Here is a look at the starting fighter squadrons -- Army.

I feel bad for these guys, as they are going to have a tough time early game.

They will be stuck with the Oscar Ic, until Tony rolls around probably somewhere in mid 42. Even in games where I accelerate the Oscar, Tojo they don't really seem to contribute much thru mid 43 as the Allies really hide a lot so I am hoping the Ic will fill the bill.

By the time I need to defend Magwe, the Tony should be coming online to fill the bill, and perhaps I will have to use the Nick as well.

I have a fair bit of Tony research, and I am pondering now do I accelerate the an early model just to get something in place of Oscar Ic or do I jump straight to the 100-I. By the time the factories repair, I will have the 500 engine bonus for the Ki100 and that is powerful.

The Ki61-d comes with centerline cannons and is one year earlier than the Ki100-I. The Ki61-c also has cannons (f mount)and comes 7 months sooner than the D.

Jumping forward it is past mid 43 for the Frank A to start production. On the Navy side the Jack should start production in very early 1943. So there is a fighter gap say from June 42 to 1943 where the Navy Zeroes & Nick will really have to do quite a bit of work.

I will have one factory of Tojo IIa, and if the air war is quiet perhaps that will be enough to let me jump straight to the Ki100-I and skip all previous versions of the Tony.

As for bomber escorts it is going to be the Oscar Ic for the Army for quite a while.

Don't forget, your Tony factories upgrade through the line for free, and each Tony brings something new. Why not research the line? It seems more supply efficient and gives you a better airforce throughout the war, not just at the end-game.

The first Tony has 2 main problems: range and service rating. As the line progresses, these problems are resolved. The Tony is very good if you can get the better SR and longer range versions into play early.

If I jump from one plane to the next down the line it will put off getting the Ki100-I till fairly late. If I jump straight down the line from the 61A to the 100-I, I can get the plane in mid 43 or maybe earlier. I am thinking other fighters will give the cover I need till it arrives.

This is a gamey move, and many players get upset when you skip generations like this.