mind_messing
Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alpha77
2. Level bombers
2.a) 1E
No research. All 1E bombers are obsolete in contested airspace. They are usefull in China, for training and (less) for ASW. The only 1E bomber to build is Ann, as it has somewhat useful range also for search/asw. Some advocate for Sonja, for 4x the chance to hit, but only 50kg. For streamlining do not build any IF you have enough PPs to update 1E to 2E groups, Done.
2.b) 2E
No research. Helen is on paper better for the IJA, but in practice can not defend itself even with armor and 12.7mm MGs in the 3rd model. So waste of resources, build Sallies en masse. Later IJA bombers not worth the effort, Done.
No research. Frances is on paper better for the IJN, but in practice can not defend itself even with armor and higher speed. Build the 2nd Nell en masse, Done.
Disagree on both points.
2a) Worth getting a fast single engine LB for kamikaze use in the late game. Toka/Ki-115 ideally.
2b) The Frances is needed because the G3M3 Nell is slooooooooooooow.
The torpedo armed Peggy is MASSIVE for Japan, it essentially doubles your naval attack capacity once IJA pilots with NavT skills appear.
Lily dive bomber variant is needed to tide the IJA anti-shipping force over till the Peggy comes online.
Ki-74 Patsy is needed late-war for the IJA to hit exposed Allied bases.
I'm going to guess that the vast majority of your attention is focused on fighters/fighter-bombers, but those that I've listed above are what I consider essential (maybe not the single-engine kami planes, at a pinch)...
While they're all cool, they're defnitely not necessary.
I've rarely built the late war 1e kami bombers. I just use naval Judy/Jill/Grace and the Army 2E (of which you'll have an excess by late war) for kamis. I'm sure the 1E can be effective but I find their range and low durability restrictive and ineffective.
I can be swayed here, but the Judy/Jill/Grace are all airframes that would be ideal for conventional attacks. The Army 2E's to a lesser extent (esp. if you've the Patsy...)
With that in mind, having lots of fast, expendable 1Es is helpful in leveraging the masses of training squadrons Japan gets late game and leave the better planes in the pools to give some depth to conventional attacks.
quote:
The Peggy-T is not as much of an impact as you'd imagine. It can be effective, but not huge. They're very good kamis, though. Pilot management is extremely increased, and it takes a while to get torpedo pilots trained for IJA (since this is the only plane doing it, so you have to wait until after they arrive to begin).
Strongly disagree here. The Peggy T gives a big impact, simply because it gives the IJA an effective anti-shipping platform when it starts to struggle for a role in 1943 onwards in the face of strong Allied flak and meagre bombloads (when they get past CAP). The absence of IJA NavT pilots is an issue, but one that's easy enough to overcome with bit of R&D and shock therapy in training. Plus by 1944 if you've not enough trained IJA GrdB pilots then you're doing something wrong.
quote:
The Lily with two 100kg bombs is inconsequential. Just use IJN 1E.
Disagree again here, it's a dive bomber, it's IJA and there's never enough IJN 1E's to go around come the late war.
quote:
The Patsy can be fine but it won't. change much late. A few P-40s or Hellcat NF on Allied rear area bases deal with this threat pretty easily. It's fast and can be a decent kami as well, but use another quick airframe (Helens are fine, FB better), if you want to streamline.
The Patsy's range means that it will be more than a few P-40's (which will actually struggle to catch it) or Hellcats needed for rear-area CAP. Lots of bases can be reached with a 36 hex range. Granted the bombload is a bit meh, but if you're using it as a long-range kami that matters less (which IMO is what you should be using it for mostly).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alpha77
Guys...KEEP IN MIND, this thread is not about comparing plane data. Or which plane you personally find cool and want to have it no matter what. There are a ton of threads about these topics already.
It is mainly to safe your resources for the 44 and 45 phase, if you plan only to play to 43 you can disregard my thoughts because stockpiles even in scen1 will be enough up to the end of 43 beginning of 44. Also you do not need to care about these ideas if you have lost 50% plus of your oil sources in 43 already  Because it is the end anyway for ya sorry ass...
Some thoughts on the premise of this exercise is that it's somewhat flawed - aircraft production in itself only uses HI (18 x #engines in plane), as does engine production (18 x engine).
HI tends to not be a limiting factor for Japan, but supply is. Seeing as supply is needed for factory expansions and repairs (regardless of the streamlining process), what exactly are the savings to be made?
Seems to me you'd be saving marginally in the early phase of the war to then suffer severely in the mid-war phase (and still pay the same costs if you're R&D'ing for the late-war airframes)...?
I am happy to confess that I'm somewhat biased given my love of building big pools of everything (because pools can't be bombed).
quote:
@mind messing, but even disregarding what is said above, I do not like much the planes you named for severall reasons. I already said, the Helen is nice to have in Scen1 - but Sally drops the same amount of bombs. I do not understand at all the Frances thing, only speed could be an argument for it. Range/load/defense is not even better than later Betty. Also no fan of torp bomber for the army, but I am a newbie in PBM (only 1 completed and 1 ongoing but slooow), so more experienced people may deem it neccesary. You can have many navy torp planes if you do it right and depending of your house rules. The Lily is laughable also as DB (if only 1E perhaps ok).
The Sally/Helen debate can be settled in that you want to keep your pilots alive to build their EXP. Sally doesn't have armour, and therefore will get your pilots killed more.
For the Frances, the speed differential between the G3M3 and the P1Y1 Frances is nearly 100km/h, which against late-war Allied CAP will be the difference between all your aircraft being shot down and some making it through CAP.
See above for why you need a IJA torpedo armed aircraft, but in short you need it to leverage the entire IJA level-bomber training programme to pump out trained pilots for the Gotterdammerung of late-war air combat (and to slam torps into loaded Allied amphibious forces for VP piñatas).
The Lily doesn't get much love because it's a bit of a niche airframe and 100kg bombs don't excite people in the same way as the 250kg, 500kg or 800kg smashers. However, as with the Peggy T, it lets you leverage the IJA training programme to give lots of depth to your anti-shipping forces.
quote:
As for kamis, there is not a single kami plane here, because throwing away a plane plus pilot is not economic at all and morally wrong (perhaps in end phase facism/marxism)
Well, I think your view may change once you reach 1945. In that context, it's easy to assemble large numbers of aircraft with average pilots to bulk out your conventional strikes against large Allied carrier task forces. The advantage is that the pilot can be much easier replaced thanks to the curtailed training needed for effective kami operations.
As for the morality, I don't think that was programmed into the game.
quote:
But I gladly await links to AAR sections or your own combat reports vs. a capable Allied player, where Frances, Peggy T or Lily DB made a big impact like you suggest. I do not mean smashing a bunch of hapless transports which the Lily for sure can do. Cause I have read many AARs I find them entertaining with some good writers around, but one can also learn. I do not remember instances where above planes did some marvels..but that eg. Frances got shot down like Betty while the Allies landed happyly in the Phillipines, the IJ player said, he might have a chance cause he has updated to the Frances.. yeah for some freighters hit, from which the Allies have literally thousands.
Some stuff from trawling through my old AAR
Lily and Frances attacking amphib TF
Another example of Lily's attacking an opposed amphib invasion
I'm sure there was also an engagement where I mauled some CVE's with a couple of Lily squadrons, but I can't find the combat report for that, so will have a look as that's probably the ideal target for them.
As a more general comment, you seem to be quite disparaging of sinking merchantmen. While sinking freighters might not be the most exciting of military achievements, playing Japan is all about exacting a toll on the Allies wherever possible. Lots of aircraft can sink freighters, but how many aircraft can do despite Allied flak and CAP? That's a better question to be asking.
< Message edited by mind_messing -- 10/3/2020 3:21:46 PM >
|
Printable Version
Most streamlined IJ PLANE research/building approach Scen1 - 
RE: Most streamlined IJ PLANE research/building approac... - 
) 
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