Yes, once again Tojo V Tony

[niceguy2005]

This is not a question, but rather and observation. Now that I am into 10/42 in my AI game I have noticed that the Tojo has well out performed the Tony. I find the Tony to be a shockingly fragile plane (even relative to other fragile IJ planes). Anyone else finding the same results? I had invested in twice as many Tony factories as I did Tojos. I'm regretting that decision.

[2ndACR]

IIRC, Tony's are bomber killers. Tojo's are good against fighters.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

IIRC, Tony's are bomber killers. Tojo's are good against fighters.

And both are underrated in the game against Allied fighters. The Tojo was a match for the Spitfire V, and the Tony wasn't that shabby (although in the hands of equal pilots, the exchange ratio was about 2-1 in favour of the Spit). Not so in the game.

The other problem is that pilot skill is overrated in the game. In reality, the best (perhaps about 90) versus the worst (whatever the lowest skill level of the Japanese in 1943-44 was) was about 5-1 in exchange ratio. This plus 2-1 for the aircraft produced the 10-1 seen during that period.

[rominet]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This is not a question, but rather and observation. Now that I am into 10/42 in my AI game I have noticed that the Tojo has well out performed the Tony. I find the Tony to be a shockingly fragile plane (even relative to other fragile IJ planes). Anyone else finding the same results? I had invested in twice as many Tony factories as I did Tojos. I'm regretting that decision.

I have made many tests in order to see differences between Tojo and Tony but it was in CHS 155.
As all mods don't have the same plane's statistics, tell me first which mod you are playing.
Or which stats do you have for these planes!!

[Japan]

In Big.B   Tojo is better then 61B Tony,  but  61C Tony is better then Tojo.
So, go for Tojo untill 61C Tony is out.. is my opinion anyways.
  

[Nemo121]

Harry,
 
I just have a question about the 90 Exp vs 30 Exp (Allied vs Japanese ) 5:1 exchange ratio. Surely though that would be skewed by the reality that in a squadron of Allies flying Spits you might have 10 x 90 Exp guys, 4 x 70 Exp guys and 2 x 50 Exp guys and in any run-in with the Japanese losses would tend to be concentrated in the 2 x 50 Exp guys.
 
I don't question the overall thrust of the exchange ratio correlation with experience but just wonder if such an effect was looked for ( and noticeable ) in the work you did ?  I have read about it anecdotally numerous times in relation to aerial warfare, tanks, etc etc etc and think it could be a bit of a confounder to the ratio you found.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

IIRC, Tony's are bomber killers. Tojo's are good against fighters.

In stock, I agree with 2ndACR.

In my stock game with Moses (AARs still viewable) I got decent results (in Burma) by placing both Tony's and Tojo's back at "support" bases, 2 hexes behind the front line bases, and depending on "bleed over" CAP to pull a few fighters into the air battles over the front line bases. This put the actual bases out of range of the most effective escorts, but still forced escort of all missions. I also spread out my fighters to cover all the bases. This meant that only 1-2 air units were present at any base at any single point in time - thus minimizing "good targets" for Moses 1000 plane bomber raids.

I built a 2:1 ratio of Tony to Tojo ... if I had it to do again, I would probably make them more like 1:1. The Moses game was my first (and only) PBEM with PDU on.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Harry,

I just have a question about the 90 Exp vs 30 Exp (Allied vs Japanese ) 5:1 exchange ratio. Surely though that would be skewed by the reality that in a squadron of Allies flying Spits you might have 10 x 90 Exp guys, 4 x 70 Exp guys and 2 x 50 Exp guys and in any run-in with the Japanese losses would tend to be concentrated in the 2 x 50 Exp guys.

I don't question the overall thrust of the exchange ratio correlation with experience but just wonder if such an effect was looked for ( and noticeable ) in the work you did ?  I have read about it anecdotally numerous times in relation to aerial warfare, tanks, etc etc etc and think it could be a bit of a confounder to the ratio you found.

The original report was in Morse and Kimball, Methods of Operations Research. I later confirmed it more broadly.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rominet

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This is not a question, but rather and observation. Now that I am into 10/42 in my AI game I have noticed that the Tojo has well out performed the Tony. I find the Tony to be a shockingly fragile plane (even relative to other fragile IJ planes). Anyone else finding the same results? I had invested in twice as many Tony factories as I did Tojos. I'm regretting that decision.

I have made many tests in order to see differences between Tojo and Tony but it was in CHS 155.
As all mods don't have the same plane's statistics, tell me first which mod you are playing.
Or which stats do you have for these planes!!

I'm playing a stock scenario.

As it's the AI I'm still on the offensive, so less of a need for bomber interceptors. I agree that Tojos are better against fighters. Having it to do over again I would have 1:1 Tojos to Tonys.

I just got a shock as I just sent Tojos and Tonys on a sweep over Ledo where they encountered an equal number of Chinese fighters. I lost 5 Tonys!!! for 3 damaged Chinese planes. The Tojos failed to engage. [8|]

[rominet]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: rominet

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This is not a question, but rather and observation. Now that I am into 10/42 in my AI game I have noticed that the Tojo has well out performed the Tony. I find the Tony to be a shockingly fragile plane (even relative to other fragile IJ planes). Anyone else finding the same results? I had invested in twice as many Tony factories as I did Tojos. I'm regretting that decision.

I have made many tests in order to see differences between Tojo and Tony but it was in CHS 155.
As all mods don't have the same plane's statistics, tell me first which mod you are playing.
Or which stats do you have for these planes!!

I'm playing a stock scenario.

As it's the AI I'm still on the offensive, so less of a need for bomber interceptors. I agree that Tojos are better against fighters. Having it to do over again I would have 1:1 Tojos to Tonys.

I just got a shock as I just sent Tojos and Tonys on a sweep over Ledo where they encountered an equal number of Chinese fighters. I lost 5 Tonys!!! for 3 damaged Chinese planes. The Tojos failed to engage. [8|]

Hi

i think you shouln't make a generalty from only one case.
I made many dogfight test and i appears that when there is a big "dishomogeneity"
in pilot's experience in the same group, there is also a big dishomogeneity" in results.
For example, with Tojo against Corsair, with the same quantity of planes, i have had 6 Tojo lost vs 1 Corsair, and the following test , 0 Tojo vs 3 Corsair.

In stock, Tony and Tojo have the same manuever (32) but the Tojo is slighly faster.
On the other hand, the Tony has better weapons and durability.
So, it confirms what has been previously said: against fighter, Tojo should be a little bit better.
Against bombers, Tony is better.
However, the Tojo has a very good climb rate. So, more Tojo will be able to intercept
very high altitude (20000 and more) ennemy raids.
I don't speak of the number of interceptors saw in the combat animation but rather the
number of fighters making REALLY the interception.
That means that there will be more casualties (bombers and fighters) with Tojo than with
Tony at high altitude.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rominet

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I'm playing a stock scenario.

As it's the AI I'm still on the offensive, so less of a need for bomber interceptors. I agree that Tojos are better against fighters. Having it to do over again I would have 1:1 Tojos to Tonys.

I just got a shock as I just sent Tojos and Tonys on a sweep over Ledo where they encountered an equal number of Chinese fighters. I lost 5 Tonys!!! for 3 damaged Chinese planes. The Tojos failed to engage. [8|]

Hi

i think you shouln't make a generalty from only one case.
I made many dogfight test and i appears that when there is a big "dishomogeneity"
in pilot's experience in the same group, there is also a big dishomogeneity" in results.
For example, with Tojo against Corsair, with the same quantity of planes, i have had 6 Tojo lost vs 1 Corsair, and the following test , 0 Tojo vs 3 Corsair.

In stock, Tony and Tojo have the same manuever (32) but the Tojo is slighly faster.
On the other hand, the Tony has better weapons and durability.
So, it confirms what has been previously said: against fighter, Tojo should be a little bit better.
Against bombers, Tony is better.
However, the Tojo has a very good climb rate. So, more Tojo will be able to intercept
very high altitude (20000 and more) ennemy raids.
I don't speak of the number of interceptors saw in the combat animation but rather the
number of fighters making REALLY the interception.
That means that there will be more casualties (bombers and fighters) with Tojo than with
Tony at high altitude.

I agree rominet that 1 example is not a good basis for judgement.

What I did not mention is that I had just checked my combat air losses and I have lost 10 times more Tonys than I have Tojos. Granted I have twice as many Tonys as I do Tojos. Still, losses have been unacceptably high.

It's interesting that you mention altitude. I've been trying to figure out why losses are high. My pilot skill for IJA fighter units is typicall about 72 for the unit as a whole and as you point out the plane statistics are almost equal. I've been thinking about altitude. Perhaps the engagements are occuring at an altitude that requires my fighters to climb. The Tojo will definitely out climb the Tony.

[Feinder]

I don't know that exp is over-rated, so much that ammo isn't a consideration.
 
Even the best aces, who did make their ammo count, would be hard pressed to score 5 kills in a single sorty.  However in WitP, aces just keep shooting, and shooting, and shooting...
 
-F-

[rominet]

Yes, ammo is a real problem in this game.
It is well known that the Zero has only 60 shells per 20mm gun
and during war, the pilot were especially using their 7.7mm guns.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: rominet

Yes, ammo is a real problem in this game.
It is well known that the Zero has only 60 shells per 20mm gun
and during war, the pilot were especially using their 7.7mm guns.

That is the main reason that fighter pilots are taught to fire in short conrtrolled bursts rather than just laying on the trigger. Ammo will always be the biggest limiting factor in a dogfight, you only have a finite amount. The better your gunnery, the more you get out of it.

When it comes down to it, the real test of a good fighter is how it acts as a weapons platform. Is it stable enough to allow the most efficient use of its ammo? None of this is modeled in WiTP.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: rominet

Yes, ammo is a real problem in this game.
It is well known that the Zero has only 60 shells per 20mm gun
and during war, the pilot were especially using their 7.7mm guns.

That is the main reason that fighter pilots are taught to fire in short conrtrolled bursts rather than just laying on the trigger. Ammo will always be the biggest limiting factor in a dogfight, you only have a finite amount. The better your gunnery, the more you get out of it.

When it comes down to it, the real test of a good fighter is how it acts as a weapons platform. Is it stable enough to allow the most efficient use of its ammo? None of this is modeled in WiTP.

You don't want your fighter design to be stable. That means it will prefer to not manoeuvre...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: rominet

Yes, ammo is a real problem in this game.
It is well known that the Zero has only 60 shells per 20mm gun
and during war, the pilot were especially using their 7.7mm guns.

That is the main reason that fighter pilots are taught to fire in short conrtrolled bursts rather than just laying on the trigger. Ammo will always be the biggest limiting factor in a dogfight, you only have a finite amount. The better your gunnery, the more you get out of it.

When it comes down to it, the real test of a good fighter is how it acts as a weapons platform. Is it stable enough to allow the most efficient use of its ammo? None of this is modeled in WiTP.

You don't want your fighter design to be stable. That means it will prefer to not manoeuvre...

A stable weapons platform is not necessarily a stable/unmanuevreable fighter though. Take the P-38 for example. It is a very stable weapons platform, and it is decently manuverable. The P-38 does have the advantage of counter-rotating propellors though, so it take out the need to fight the centrifugal force of the engine.

What you want in a fighter is something stable enough to allow good shots with the weapons, and manuverable enough to get those weapons on target. It ends up being a compromise in the end.

[Q-Ball]

One overlooked factor in this debate is production paths. The two planes are close, and having both is good, but I would produce more Tojos. Why?

1. The TOJO uses the NAKAJIMA engine. This engine is useful for more than just Tojos. The TONY, on the other hand, uses the Kawasaki Engine. Once you finish with the Ki-61c (in most versions), then you are at a dead-end with those engines; you can't use the rest in your pool, and you have to convert the factories. Even in 1942, you have to manage Kawa engine production more carefully than NAKA.
2. The TOJO factories, in most versions, Auto-Upgrade to the FRANK. That is useful. The TONYs, on the other hand, upgrade to the Ki-100; a nice plane, but if you have the Frank, why do you need it? The answer is you don't. If you plan on playing into 1944, invest in TOJO.

That's my 2 Yen anyway.

[Coach Z]

I am finding more succes with my Tonys then my Tojos in my game vs. Floyd G. While initially my group of Tojos that are the early prototype group gave a good account of themselves in Burma vs the LB-30 Liberators; I am seeing greater succes with the Tony versus all types of Allied planes. But then again several of my Tojo Sentais keep going on strike in Burma and China [i.e. refusing/declining to fly escort or CAP]. Why this happened I have no clue it seems to be something that happens every month to me for a week in these theaters.

I think I prefer the heavier armament and 1 hex longer range of the Tonys.

[hosho]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


2. The TOJO factories, in most versions, Auto-Upgrade to the FRANK. That is useful. The TONYs, on the other hand, upgrade to the Ki-100; a nice plane, but if you have the Frank, why do you need it? The answer is you don't. If you plan on playing into 1944, invest in TOJO.

That's my 2 Yen anyway.

[X(]? japanese player needs all fighters one can get in this game and ki-100 is a heck of a fighter. in my game against the ai I produced hordes of franks but found out that ki-100 is an valuable asset. In my opinion ki-100 was better than the frank because it could twist and turn almost as good as oscar and still had the speed to dive with the hellcat. in game terms k-100 had better results in fighting usn fighters than the frank ( both flown by hi exp pilots).
i always produce more tonys that tojos ( however, I don´t claim that this is the right way to go, just my 2 HRK :- )

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

One overlooked factor in this debate is production paths. The two planes are close, and having both is good, but I would produce more Tojos. Why?

1. The TOJO uses the NAKAJIMA engine. This engine is useful for more than just Tojos. The TONY, on the other hand, uses the Kawasaki Engine. Once you finish with the Ki-61c (in most versions), then you are at a dead-end with those engines; you can't use the rest in your pool, and you have to convert the factories. Even in 1942, you have to manage Kawa engine production more carefully than NAKA.
2. The TOJO factories, in most versions, Auto-Upgrade to the FRANK. That is useful. The TONYs, on the other hand, upgrade to the Ki-100; a nice plane, but if you have the Frank, why do you need it? The answer is you don't. If you plan on playing into 1944, invest in TOJO.

That's my 2 Yen anyway.

I'm still very new to the Japanese production system, but IMO the fact that the Tojo takes the Kawasaki can be pretty easily handled. It does take a little planning to make sure the right order of magnitude of engines are produced. IMHO though the most severe shortage for Japan is decent pilots. Any reasonable production changes that has an impact on saving pilots is worth it.

I'm new to playing Japan, but so far, against the AI, the greater allied threat is fighters, not bombers. The endless waves of Kittyhawks, Hurricanes, P-39s and P-40s that the AI throws at you attrites the fighter groups. This is why I lean toward to Tojo at this stage of the war. I'm losing about 5 times as many Tonys as I am Tojos in air to air combat. Bomber intercept is less critical for me than shooting down allied fighters and getting my pilots home at the end of the day. Right now though the war is being fought far away from strategic resource centers.