Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japanese airframe production

 
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 >> The War Room >> RE: Japanese airframe production Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 6:11:50 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1919
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Continue Nell production or convert to Betty?

Given all the other things that seem to need converting - and the expense of doing so - I'm definitely considering leaving the Nell's in production.



That's definitely my plan. An additional factor is that the Nell uses the Ha-33 engine, and the Betty uses the Ha-32 engine. Both engines are also used by other planes. I like the idea that I can adjust the proportion of betty/nell production depending on the engine availability that's left over from the other plane builds. Sally's taking a beating? Build Bettys. Need more Vals? Build Nells. It's not just the flexibility, it's reducing the chance I mis-analyze something and end up painting myself in a corner.


< Message edited by erstad -- 8/12/2009 6:12:04 AM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 151
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 9:45:38 AM   
vonSchnitter


Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline
Well, call me names, but I just could not leave TimToms statements on Airgroup spawning alone.

Here is what I did:

Scen 1: Betty, Nell, Zero pool set to empty, Betty, Nell, Zero production set to none.

One group on Nells with AC available and reserve - spawning 9.12.41
One group of Betty with two AC damaged - spawning 9.12.41
One group of Zeros with nothing, zero , zilch - spawning 9.12.41
Claudes are set to upgrade to Zeros with the original pool.
No Replacements for the scenario.
I choose the second day into the scenario to avoid any unknown day one issues .....

Results:
Nells: Spawning with the complement of AC specified
Betty: Spawning with 2 damaged AC
Zero: Spawning empty.

From my end this looks like this: Regardless of available AC, groups will spawn with exactly the numbers shown in the editor. And as the case may be, for free - including the engines.
If the secified numbers are zero, the group will spawn regardless.

Availabilty of older AC in the upgrade path is ignored.

Conclusions:

Granted, I used in-production ACs, but there are some Airgroups spawning before their AC go into production, which are supposed to show up regardless, considering prior information.

Unless there is something hidden lower than I choose to dig - airgroup withdrawal ? - it looks safe to draw these conclusions:

a)Airgroups spawn regardless of production, pools or some such
b) AC listed as available, damaged or probably in reserve come for free - including engines.

Which translates into:
No need to produce or R&D AC you do not care for - unless they are part of an upgrade path.
When calculating ac production needs, "only" attrition and spawning understrength groups need to be accounted for (my tables - minus attrition - do just that)

Taking late war or other R&D factories to research earlier models - just to make them productive earlier - looks tempting.
Just keep in mind: R&D factories cannot switch to productive ones, and productive ones not to R&D.
Whether the last is a real problem, is another issue.

Cheers






(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 152
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 1:16:43 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: On the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Continue Nell production or convert to Betty?

Given all the other things that seem to need converting - and the expense of doing so - I'm definitely considering leaving the Nell's in production.

Balance between Sally and Helen?

In my last stock game, I built no Helens, only Sallys, I now think this was a mistake, just because of the engine aspect, better to spread out the engine consumption. In AE, the Sally looks like the better bomber, except for the armor aboard the Helen. Need to do some testing. But it would cost 1000s of supply to convert the Helen factory over to Sally's and those points could instead be spent building the Helen factory up to a higher level. I'm leaning in the direction of building up the factory instead of converting it.

No naval transports till 44 - other than the Mav/Em - that hurts - wasted slots!



If resources were not the limiting factor, I'd probably opimize more. But as things stand, and after all our discussions, I am inclined to do as follows:

- Keep both the Nell and the Betty in production, but increase Nell production.
- Keep both the Sally and the Helen in production, and increase the production of both.
- Keep both the A6M2 and A6M3 in production, and increase the production of both.

As you mention, the supply used for converting a factory is better used at expanding it. Besides, if we have to big a surplus of a plane, we can stop production for a while.

At the same time, there are certain factories that might be better used by converting them to produce other airframes:

- The Nate factories converted to A6M2 (Harbin) and Oscar (Maebashi) production. I'd rather have Zeros and Oscars than Nates...
and I am willing to pay the supplies for it.
- The Ki-36 factory converted to Oscar production. The Ki-36 is not needed, more Oscars definitely are.
- The Ki-51 factory converted to Ki-48 production. The Ki-48 becomes armored soon, and can replace most/all of the light bombers.
- the Ki-56 factory converted to whatever is needed the most... or to C5M if nothing else.

Just my 2 cents and, as I said before, I have changed my mind quite a few times. I undoubtedly will do so again. But I do believe I will be a much better player due to these discussions, thanks guys!

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 153
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 1:42:17 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
Have you guys checked which air groups can convert to A6M3? I have found just one and somehow cannot find this group again. All others can convert to A6M3a but not to A6M3. This has significant effect as the A6M3 is the only version in this line which is able to upgrade to J2s or N1s.

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 154
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 1:45:17 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4717
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
yep




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 155
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 1:46:29 PM   
vonSchnitter


Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline
these ones ?

10 Genzan Ku S-1 0 0 27 420401 609
172 6th Ku S-1 6 0 45 420401 609

Edit:

At the start, there is only one group to upgrade to the M3 - a Claude group - should be easy to find.
Massagin databases is not the ticket everytime ;

With PDU on, probably 3 groups may convert to M3 plus the one spawning with the type.
Does not make much difference in numbers - and certainly has not much bearing on long term capacity planing - but kudos to elladan - this sort of detailed question shows that the dachshund is pretty much alive and well.

< Message edited by vonSchnitter -- 8/12/2009 6:00:37 PM >

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 156
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 2:47:35 PM   
SireChaos

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 8/14/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Continue Nell production or convert to Betty?

Given all the other things that seem to need converting - and the expense of doing so - I'm definitely considering leaving the Nell's in production.

Balance between Sally and Helen?

In my last stock game, I built no Helens, only Sallys, I now think this was a mistake, just because of the engine aspect, better to spread out the engine consumption. In AE, the Sally looks like the better bomber, except for the armor aboard the Helen. Need to do some testing. But it would cost 1000s of supply to convert the Helen factory over to Sally's and those points could instead be spent building the Helen factory up to a higher level. I'm leaning in the direction of building up the factory instead of converting it.

No naval transports till 44 - other than the Mav/Em - that hurts - wasted slots!



If resources were not the limiting factor, I'd probably opimize more. But as things stand, and after all our discussions, I am inclined to do as follows:

- Keep both the Nell and the Betty in production, but increase Nell production.
- Keep both the Sally and the Helen in production, and increase the production of both.
- Keep both the A6M2 and A6M3 in production, and increase the production of both.

As you mention, the supply used for converting a factory is better used at expanding it. Besides, if we have to big a surplus of a plane, we can stop production for a while.

At the same time, there are certain factories that might be better used by converting them to produce other airframes:

- The Nate factories converted to A6M2 (Harbin) and Oscar (Maebashi) production. I'd rather have Zeros and Oscars than Nates...
and I am willing to pay the supplies for it.
- The Ki-36 factory converted to Oscar production. The Ki-36 is not needed, more Oscars definitely are.
- The Ki-51 factory converted to Ki-48 production. The Ki-48 becomes armored soon, and can replace most/all of the light bombers.
- the Ki-56 factory converted to whatever is needed the most... or to C5M if nothing else.

Just my 2 cents and, as I said before, I have changed my mind quite a few times. I undoubtedly will do so again. But I do believe I will be a much better player due to these discussions, thanks guys!


I´m doing the following in my current PBEM as Japan:

- Keep both Nell and Betty in production, but increase Betty production to about 60-80
- Increase A6M2 production to perhaps 100; slowly convert A5M4 squadrons to A6M2 while keeping up a reserve for the carriers
- Increase B5N2 and D3A1 production to about 40-50 each (and convert the B5N1 factory to B5N2); land-based squadrons are equipped with Mabels and B5N1 to use up the existing stocks and save B5N2 for the carriers
- Convert/expand float plane production to 20-30 E13A1, 10-15 F1M and 5-10 E14Y1; set all non-submarine-based squadrons to convert to 2/3 E13A1, 1/3 F1M (the E13A1 is a far better scout, but the F1M can double as a float fighter)
- Convert all Army fighter factories to Ki-43-Ic; set all Army fighter squadrons except those in China and Manchuria to convert to Ki-43-Ic
- Convert and expand Army bomber factories to produce ca 100 Ki-21-IIa and 30-40 Ki-48-Ib (which has the added bonus of these upgrading to better versions for free later on); set squadrons outside China/Manchuria to convert to 2/3 Ki-21 and 1/3 Ki-48
- Convert Army recon factories to Ki-46-II Dinah, and set all squadrons outside China/Manchuria to upgrade to this
- Convert Army transport factories to MC-21; set most squadrons to upgrade to this, but keep a few to use up remaining Ki-57-I stocks

As the war goes on, I plan to:
- Keep the A6M2 as a long-range escort, but expand A6M3 production when that becomes available, to be able to produce the superior A6M3a in larger number when it is ready; I might convert the A6M2 factory to A6M3a by then
- Convert D3A production to D4Y models when available
- Convert B5N productionto B6N models when available
- Ultimately convert all patrol production to latest H8K model
- Convert all naval transport production to H8K2-L
- split Army fighter production about 20/40/20/20 between Ki-43-IIa, Ki-45-KAIa, Ki-44-IIa and Ki-61-Ia; ultimately most of these will convert to Ki-84 production
- split Army bomber production about 40/20/40 between Ki-48-IIb, Ki-21-IIb and the Ki-49 models, with Ki-21 and Ki-49 production later to convert to Ki-67 models
- let Army recon production automatically upgrade to Ki-46 III
- convert Army transport production to Ki-49-II KAI

Of course, all of this is from studying the numbers in the database and WitpStaff; the realities of war might change some or all of this.

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 157
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 3:13:00 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: On the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Have you guys checked which air groups can convert to A6M3? I have found just one and somehow cannot find this group again. All others can convert to A6M3a but not to A6M3. This has significant effect as the A6M3 is the only version in this line which is able to upgrade to J2s or N1s.


Premise: PDU is OFF. With PDU on, there is no need for this, as we can do almost anything:

1. A6M3: 2 Hikotai convert to this plane: Genzan Ku S-1, and 6th Ku S-1.
2. A6M2: 5 Hikotai convert to this plane: Yamada Det S-1, Yokosuka Ku S-1, 1st Ku S-1, Okamoto Det, and 381 Ku S-1
3. A5M4: 2 Hikotai and 1 Chutai keep the model: Sasebo Ku S1, Yamada Det S-2, and Kawai Det

The rest are fitted with A6M3a and newer models.
Interestingly, the CS to CVL conversions come with the A6M2, which are scheduled to convert to the Sen Baku, not to the A6M3a.

My personal preference is to play with PDU on, but the above should be taken into account by anyone playing with PDU off.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 158
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 3:31:17 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
I had PDU on and A6M3 didn't show as an option for most of the groups. Haven't checked it thoroughly as it was very late yesterday.

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 159
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 3:37:49 PM   
SireChaos

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 8/14/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

I had PDU on and A6M3 didn't show as an option for most of the groups. Haven't checked it thoroughly as it was very late yesterday.


I think A6M3 is not carrier capable; that might be it.

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 160
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 3:43:39 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
Didn't expect it to be an option for CV groups. Should be for land based ones though. I will check again tonight, it's quite possible I just messed something.

(in reply to SireChaos)
Post #: 161
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 3:47:57 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: On the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

I had PDU on and A6M3 didn't show as an option for most of the groups. Haven't checked it thoroughly as it was very late yesterday.


I just checked, and you are correct. Of all IJN land-based fighter units, only one can be upgraded to A6M3, even with PDU on.
So, I guess it is a question for Joe:

- Is that part of the design, only one unit can be converted to A6M3 from those that are available at start?
- Or is it a side-effect of the units being carrier-capable?
- Or if we upgrade that particular unit then we will be able to ugrade the others?

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 162
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 3:55:05 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
Ok, so it seems I wasn't as wasted yesterday as I thought :)
quote:

- Or if we upgrade that particular unit then we will be able to ugrade the others?

I haven't seen that. Even after I have upgraded that unit no other were showing A6M3 option.
If it is working as designed and we have to live with it this will surely have a big impact on IJN fighters production planning.

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 163
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 7:47:53 PM   
vonSchnitter


Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline
Some more on IJN Patrols and Transports:

Patrol:

There is just not much of note on the Patrol craft. There are just 14 groups for the duration with some 150 airframes - not squaring expansions or withdrawels or permanently resticted groups - 1 I believe.
Which means, inherent requirements are rather small - unless you care to upgrade all Mavisses to Emilies in a hurry. (about 100 airframes)

Since the efficiency of long range naval searches seems to be on doubt - (some thread about a naval search cut-off range) - I would keep things as they are and adjust to attrition requirements.
In fact, I am locking at not upgrading the H6K4 factory to H6K5 at all, but rather wait for the Emily - or even convert the Mavis factory to Emily anway whwn the type gets available - freeing up the Emily R&D factory for use with something else.

If long range naval search can be demontstrated to be of use, augementing the small number of patrols should become a consideration. Using the later model Nell for the purpose comes to mind.

Transports:

Well, to me using IJN transport AC is a two-sided sword. On the one side it cuts into the pool of naval pilots, on the other side longer range than the IJA types can offer or the need to supply no AF bases quickly and temporarily may offer some distinct advantages.

If there is a need for range early on, it is related to para-dropping. Since this has been somewhat cur-tailed in AE, the use of Tinas is very limited.

The other thing - dropping off troops and supplies into non AF bases exists from early on.
So my idea goes like this:
Leave the bulk transport to the IJA types, use the IJN for long haul special duties or for no AF available support. Conserve them as much as you can
That is: No Tinas, increase the Mavis Transport slightly - for tactical options.

Later on the Tabby is the ticket - as a big hauler. Ignoring the Betty transport type - even though it comes in numbers - should not be much of an issue.



btw. I am not going into IJN land based fighters, NF types and such.
For three reasons:
1. Those issues may arise after the end of 42 - by the time I may get there some improved dataminig tools may have become available, well beyond my humble attempts at using spreadsheets or basic sql database use.
I just want to make sure, my decisions may not hurt later developments too bad.
2. Planning beyond that time does nor make much sense to me: Too many variables to influence things.
3. After establishing the new airgroup spawning rules, any attention to late war issues look quite moot.
Actually. I feel quite tempted to convert any R&D factories with availabilties after Q4/42 into the earliest possible productive R&Ds - just for production flexibility. Esp. since the ROI in R&D looks quite meagre on R&D.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 164
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 9:41:19 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Nightfighters are useless in WITP. Maybe they have a purpose in AE. But I will need a good reason to produce Irvings and Nicks.

(in reply to vonSchnitter)
Post #: 165
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/12/2009 11:49:57 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Later on the Tabby is the ticket - as a big hauler. Ignoring the Betty transport type - even though it comes in numbers - should not be much of an issue.

Why not Emily? Bigger load, longer range, earlier availability and is a floatplane. More expensive, true, but this shouldn't mean much with the numbers needed.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 166
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 12:37:22 AM   
vonSchnitter


Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline
Well Elladan,

yes the Emily is the big hauler. No doubt.

Lets forget the IJA transports - just the IJN ones for now.

Air lifting has two applications:

Offensivly by supporting advancing troops - or by paradrops.
Or as a kind of expediting tool to cover up glitches  - or needs - in the supply/forces chain.

If you look at the period till the end of 42 - the offensive part - where is the emily ?

In this regard the Emily is not much more as a "plug" to howl stuff in an emergency to a place - fast.
However, this is not a technical or purely numbers thing.

To be more precise: I see no place for 4E IJN howlers till the end of 42, except for supporting advances. (in theory)

After that: If your defense perimiter has issues - the Emily may be your only choice.








(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 167
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 2:19:23 AM   
Gobstopper

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 8/13/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Nightfighters are useless in WITP. Maybe they have a purpose in AE. But I will need a good reason to produce Irvings and Nicks.


Nick has jumped to the front of the line as the first post start fighter to come online (well technically fighter-bomber). 4 months before tojo and 10 before tony. and it has armor and cannon to boot. slightly less maneuver than tojo and 2 engines as downsides, but more range, durability, and a nice bomb load. should be the plane of choice for taking on big bombers i'd think.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 168
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 2:42:42 AM   
Djordje

 

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
I just checked, and you are correct. Of all IJN land-based fighter units, only one can be upgraded to A6M3, even with PDU on.
So, I guess it is a question for Joe:
- Is that part of the design, only one unit can be converted to A6M3 from those that are available at start?
- Or is it a side-effect of the units being carrier-capable?
- Or if we upgrade that particular unit then we will be able to ugrade the others?


There are some IJA recon units that upgrade to KI-27 and some other fighter type (forgot which one). With PDU turned on when you select possible upgrades for those recon squadrons you see all the recon plane types and KI-27 with them. Once you convert that unit to KI-27 you can no longer go back to recon planes, but upgrades open for all other IJA planes effectively taking away recon squadron from you and giving you another fighter squadron.

Perhaps same thing will happen with those squadrons that upgrade to A6M3 and seem to be dead end, other IJN planes might open once you upgrade it. Someone has to actually play the game until then to test it though...

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 169
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 2:47:01 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gobstopper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Nightfighters are useless in WITP. Maybe they have a purpose in AE. But I will need a good reason to produce Irvings and Nicks.


Nick has jumped to the front of the line as the first post start fighter to come online (well technically fighter-bomber). 4 months before tojo and 10 before tony. and it has armor and cannon to boot. slightly less maneuver than tojo and 2 engines as downsides, but more range, durability, and a nice bomb load. should be the plane of choice for taking on big bombers i'd think.


It had some troubles with that in Witp. Will be interesting to see how it fares in AE. I suspect speed was an issue.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Gobstopper)
Post #: 170
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 3:02:33 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
I'm open minded, maybe the Night Fighters are worth a damn now. I tried them as bomber busters and pretty much everything else in WITP; didn't work. They were useless.

Even as Kamis they sucked.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 171
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 3:16:28 AM   
Gobstopper

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 8/13/2009
Status: offline
well, only the last nick is qualified as a night fighter, the 1st 3 are FB. but what else can you use? the tony appears to be pure crapola now until the 100-I in 45 and even then, the frank shows up at the same time. tojo's are unarmored until 3/44 although they may still be the answer vs other fighters.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 172
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 4:44:38 AM   
seydlitz


Posts: 2031
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline
The Nick (FB version) would be an outstanding choice as an early fighter. Good range, good firepower, relatively good speed and maneuver. Only problem that I can find is that as a fighter bomber, regular fighter units can't select it as a valid upgrade. They can take fighters only, not fighter bombers. It would be nice if this was fixed in a patch.

(in reply to Gobstopper)
Post #: 173
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 8:05:40 AM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
vonSchnitter,
I was refering to your statement about Tabby being the plane of choice for IJN transport groups later on. I don't see her being better in any way then Emily, so i asked why have you chosen Tabby.
As for the airlift applications, I see evacuation as another one, that's later in the war though.
I agree there is not that much work for transport groups in general, so I don't plan to invest in those planes too much, but having said that I think I will aim to produce only Emily when it becomes available. Unless someone can prove me wrong and show any other IJN transport is better.

(in reply to vonSchnitter)
Post #: 174
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 3:29:06 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Emily is a transport aircraft now?

It has always been capable of supply transport but it isn't a transport AFAIK, and transport squadrons shouldn't be able to upgrade to patrol aircraft. Thus the tabby is the best transport aircraft the IJN has.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 175
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 3:36:10 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
There is Emily-L, the transport version of the plane. Patrol version is obviously there as well (2 of them if I recall correctly).

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 176
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 3:53:28 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Ah..that's a new plane then. The only issue to consider is the payload vs the Tabby, as otherwise I would heartily agree that the Emily would be superior in all other aspects as a transport: range, airfield not needed, defensive armament.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 177
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 4:18:27 PM   
Zebedee


Posts: 525
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Ah..that's a new plane then. The only issue to consider is the payload vs the Tabby, as otherwise I would heartily agree that the Emily would be superior in all other aspects as a transport: range, airfield not needed, defensive armament.



Emily-L has 12400 load vs Tabby's 9920. However Tabby has two engines and a service rating of 2, whereas Emily has four engines and a service rating of 4. Both are unarmed but the Emily-L does have the armour point and a higher durability. Depending on the impact of the service rating, that might make it a bit less of an obvious answer. But in the absence of hard numbers on service rating and its impact, the Emily-L certainly looks like a lovely transport.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 178
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 4:24:11 PM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Swindon, UK
Status: offline
The additional cost derived from number of engines can be safely ommited from the calculation, simply due to a very low number of planes needed as compared to other types.
As for the service rating, hard to say without any in-game experience, but I don't see them being in constant use, rather a burst mode. That would alleviate the problem a bit. Anyway, for me the Emily-L is clearly a winner. And it comes earlier as well.

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 179
RE: Japanese airframe production - 8/13/2009 5:28:14 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Service rating should not totally be ignored. One of the primary uses of Jap transport aircraft is extracting troops from isolated bases. This can cause quite a load of damage, which will take a lot longer to repair on the Emily-L. Which means you will need more planes to maintain the evacuation.

Still, it is quite nice to have the ability to extract troops from dot bases now....assuming there's not some special code to keep them from doing it. They should at least have the ability to get troops out using sea landing and take off.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Japanese airframe production Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.145