Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Journier]

hey erkki, what are some good planes to aim for to build?

land based fighters is what i mean.

Tojo looks good(especially the 40mm gun one (but horrid accuracy :*)
the Tony, i read some guys said they were fantastic, but 3 hex range makes me hate them. they are one of the earliest fighters with armor though, so maybe they work....

what do you aim for, for fighter production? the stats etc for fighters dont mean much to me, i generally just grab the higher firepower and durability fighter now, since maneuverability i swear doesnt mean much in all the fighter battles ive seen (60 zero's vs 20 hurricanes, zero's get horrendous losses, 4 hurricanes are damaged lol) still grasping at that.

[Erkki]

hey erkki, what are some good planes to aim for to build?

land based fighters is what i mean.

Tojo looks good(especially the 40mm gun one (but horrid accuracy :*)
the Tony, i read some guys said they were fantastic, but 3 hex range makes me hate them. they are one of the earliest fighters with armor though, so maybe they work....

what do you aim for, for fighter production? the stats etc for fighters dont mean much to me, i generally just grab the higher firepower and durability fighter now, since maneuverability i swear doesnt mean much in all the fighter battles ive seen (60 zero's vs 20 hurricanes, zero's get horrendous losses, 4 hurricanes are damaged lol) still grasping at that.

I'm pretty sure Hurricane is über, they IRL did something like 1:2 against Ki-43s. Against Bf 109 E and against its slightly better semi-equivalent Ki-61, they were slaughtered.

Ki-44-IIb's 40mm caseless sucks. Ki-61-Ic is IJAAF's first cannon-armed fighter(not counting Ki-45, planning to build them as they are decently fast and best armed until that Ki-61-Ic).

Note Ki-61's service rating is 3, worse than Army bombers. Not good for constant action..

I'm still to figure out how the game works, in its code, in the fighter vs. fighter engagements, but it seems speed and climb are well favored, especially if either side has radar(and presumably GCI?).

[Journier]

ahhh ok thanks for that info!!!

for navy planes, i was thinking about next time i play researching the A6M5b or c from the very start.

the one that has armor and more 13.2mm guns? i think, not looking at the game this moment. I do remember is 20mph slower than the a6m5 zero, but it gets armor and such...  any experience with that?

the fighter looks pretty fantastic compared to the rest considering the zero finally get ARMOR. If i can research it enough and pull it into a late 1943 finish date probably be pretty strong...

maybe a good idea?

[Erkki]

April 15th, almost nothing happened. I think the 54th Division I have aboard ships from Honshu is going to China instead of Burma...

ahhh ok thanks for that info!!!

for navy planes, i was thinking about next time i play researching the A6M5b or c from the very start.

the one that has armor and more 13.2mm guns? i think, not looking at the game this moment. I do remember is 20mph slower than the a6m5 zero, but it gets armor and such...  any experience with that?

the fighter looks pretty fantastic compared to the rest considering the zero finally get ARMOR. If i can research it enough and pull it into a late 1943 finish date probably be pretty strong...

maybe a good idea?

Might be and might not. Because its dated late you will have to research it longer. I dont think armor/durability is critical in carrier battles: bombers that are hit will not hit any way, and your hurt fighters, destroyed or damaged, wont shoot down bombers or escort fighters. Matters IMHO more in sustained operations, not so in the critical carrier ops or short battles against surface assets where fighters dont take even flak hits.

Interception wise speed and climb are more critical to get as many fighters as quick as possible to the enemy before it gets through to attack ships. I have now 62 fully repaired R&D factories for A6M3a(they went for M3 first, each time one was repaired it was upgraded), I'm trying to advance M3a at least 2 months. Same with M5. M5 is probably best Zero, and best to research because after a Navy fighter unit(most of them) upgrades to M5 they can continue to J2M or N1K. Very few units can upgrade directly!

How I see it:

Ki-43: ##### crapplane, really, useful only because it is long legged. IIa and b carry 250kg bombs so its ideal kamikaze plane. IIb armoured, somewhat useful as sacrificial long range escort, cheaper to lose those piloted by replacement pilots,  than any bombers.

Ki-44: very good performance, just no armour, low durability, poor armament. Must be built in thousands because its pretty much best fighter vs. fighter machine for long time. IIb isnt any better than IIa, IIc improvement and must be built because its only useful late war Army fighter besides Ki-61-Id and Ki-100, that has service rating lower than 3 and can thus do sustained operations.

Ki-61: Ia is good only for armour, maybe for some good elite squad? Poor service rating. Ib isnt much better but Ic is first Army single engine fighter with cannon armament, and hence a must. Id has better service rating, great improvement. II is crap.

Ki-100: cannon, service rating 1, manoeuvrable, good climb, can you ask more? Slow, but so are all Jap planes.

Ki-84: premium fighter, just horrible service rating and only moderate climb. A must to built but cant be relied on to all roles and uses.

A6M: sucks, but you're stuck with it. At least it has cannons, and excellent pilots early on. Later models are somewhat better but the Allied fighters get exponentially better.

N1K: great anti-4E, with armour and 4 cannons. Not so good for sustained operations, if used defensively radar is a must. Much better than Zero.

J2M: M2 better than first and 2nd N1K, better than Zero, M2 has acceptable service rating as well.

edit, the perimeter and supply/fuel convoy routes again:

Spoiler: The Perimeter (click to show/hide)

[Sheb]

Wow, now I really understand why striking Hawaii can be so important.

[Hyo]

Eh, but A6Ms can't be that bad, since they were used and produced until the very end of the war, weren't they? They kept it in operation for a reason, y'know .

Although, yeah, it was seriously outmatched by allied planes except by maneuverability by the end, although the M5s were quite decent.

Does the N1K still have the engine and service problems as they did in RL?

[Erkki]

Wow, now I really understand why striking Hawaii can be so important.

Yeah, well, at least they'll have to bring the supplies and fuel all the way from California, and the Oz needs more for its industry.

Eh, but A6Ms can't be that bad, since they were used and produced until the very end of the war, weren't they? They kept it in operation for a reason, y'know .

Although, yeah, it was seriously outmatched by allied planes except by maneuverability by the end, although the M5s were quite decent.

Does the N1K still have the engine and service problems as they did in RL?

Manoeuvrability was Zero's problem! The Japanese design doctrines called for very thin but long control surfaces(look at Zeros ailerons!) - these have the advantage of precise and effective control at lower speeds, but suffer from compression effects at high speeds. The Zero had very high power-to-weight ratio and very low mass-to-wing-area, but it could be evaded by simply starting a dive and rolling to either side. Zero and Hayabusa had lower "never exceed" speeds than any Allied fighter as well. Another problem is that they are both seriously slow(at higher speeds powerloading matters less, power per frontal area and aerodynamical shape more), and as we all know, in aerial combat, altitude is options, but speed is life, and these two are interchangeable by the concept of energy, which they sucked at as they were slow, and had horrible dive performance so they couldnt even fully exploit better climb for diving attacks.

Its the same with the Ki-61, they intended to make a copy of the Bf 109, but dropped everything that made 109 awesome: the thin wing designed for maximum speed and high speed lift, the leading edge slats, simplicity for mass production and all the engineering decisions to maximize field maintainability and repairability. They put in more armor than necessary, made useless "improvements" to the engine that made it overly complex and difficult to maintain, dropped the slats and made the wing so big it wasnt even fast any more.

N1K has the same engine issues in the game, the N1K2-J is better in that regard(though not as good as Ki-44, Zero, Ki-43, Ki-100 etc), K5 which has different engine is again horrible.

EDIT: I think the reason why Zero was kept in production until end of the war was more about factory machinery, assembly lines and training... Also modelled in the game, switching plants from plane to another is usually not good. If more of a certain type of plane is needed, instead of converting less required plane's plants, its often better to stop the plants and expand the already existing ones. Expanding 1 point (1 per month capacity) costs 100 supply tons, 100 HI points. Repairing that expansion takes 1100 supply. To generate 1100 tons of supply and 100 HI points, you need to transfer and process 1100 tons of resources and similar amount of fuel(10% more oil for that), just to gain 1/30 of a plane or engine a day. Even more costly it is to convert a factory from plane type to another when the whole factory is damaged, and possibly even needs expansion.

Also the only Japanese carrier capable fighter besides A5M. 

[Journier]

They produced them till the end of the war because as Erkii mentioned, they invested a whole lot into manufacturing them.

The Japanese had some of the worst plane production facility locations ever.

for example.

the 1.6 million square foot A6M zero plant was gigantic, however, they put it out in the countryside, with dirt road access and no airport nearby.

So each plane had to be assembled in the factory, then dismantled, and hauled by CART, Im literally talking by god damn horse (or donkey? cow?) cart, to the airport that was several miles away and assembled again and tested for flight.
that one factory only ever produced a tiny amount of what it should have been capable of due to the logistics of its location.

boy... the war in the pacific forum teaches you so much about history, 3 weeks ago id not know any of this cool info about ww2 production/location/logistics ^_^

edit----
hey erkii... is there a way to reload torpedo's at kwajolein island for my carriers? I think you can reload at truk but damn it, its so hard to drive allllll the wayyy back there when your way behind enemy lines

[Erkki]

Kwajalein's port is 3(2) so it needs 292 naval support. It already has 240+15, you can bring more from the islands around, but those are valuable base force units. You can expand it to 5(2), will take 3 months or so though, after which it only needs 240, provided by the Naval HQ already present.


April 16th:

Island of Panay in the Philippines now completely Japanese! G4Ms strike Rangoon's port, and sink a transport ship, lighting up its fuel cargo. Royal Air Force doesnt bother to take off.

Islands of Soemba and Bores(between Java and Timor) invaded, apparently there are no defenders...

[Journier]

ah not those damn naval support units....

Is it me or are those the most precious units in Japan? Even the home islands dont seem to have "enough".

and looking at the unit replacements, you get almost none during the entire game...

[Erkki]

April 17th

Another xAK sunk off Rangoon. Looks like the enemy gave up the air war despite the exchange factor being pretty well on their side, at least in pilots...

[Sheb]

Caution, it may be a trap for you.

[Zrk2]

Wow Japan, way to plan.

[thobal]

I heard that the Zero also had tons of propaganda behind it as being the best fighter ever that no allied fighter could match. And the leadership started to believe their own lies and why replace the best thing ever?

[Hyo]

I heard that the Zero also had tons of propaganda behind it as being the best fighter ever that no allied fighter could match. And the leadership started to believe their own lies and why replace the best thing ever?

I doubt they were that idiotic to be like that, although, er, it's an interesting possibility. Can't confirm it myself though.

In any case, just curious, does the game reflect the change in the Allies' tactics when it comes to aerial fighting? Initially, the Allies adopted the similar tactic of dogfighting as the Japanese, but they then switched to the dive-bombing... er, fighting(?), tactic later on, using their superior speed. I mean, that created a rather large drastic change in air superiority from what I know.