Don't be afraid of Nates. Compared to Oscars, the biggest difference is really only range. Both are poorly armed, have high manouver, and very fragile. Nates can work just fine in CAP roles. You need the Oscars for Escort.
The problem I always have is with Claude's. Huge difference between Claude and Zeke, especially armament.
BTW: this is historically accurate. Nates held their own in China against the China and later the SOV fighters. They can't take on 4E's or later US fighters though, and they can't escort due to range.
Good point. I never thought of it like that, I've been obsessed with range because of the vast distances involved, but as you point out, in China it does'nt matter so much.
The airforce in China (in my games) has always been last on the list for upgrades though.
The above came up in the 'A Lemon Rises in the East' AAR, and it got me to wondering what build strategy players employ regarding the Nate, when playing the GC in Scenario 1 and 2.
At the start of the Grand Campaigns, there are quite a few about, but as they are quite fragile, they suffer quite high operational losses so there is a demand for replacements.
At the start of the GC's there are over 230+ of the dead end Nakajima Kotobuki engine in stock for these flying cheese crates, so what do players consider the best build strategy for these aircraft?
I used to switch all Nate production over to Oscar Ic immediately & change any Nakajima Kotobuki production to more useful designs, but then I was left with hundreds of engines that never got used.
I've changed my mind in the last couple of games, change the engine production immediately, and now build out the pooled engines by putting them in Nates, and using that aircraft as my primary fighter in China, whilst using the rest in training formations in the Home Islands and Manchuria. Once the engine pool reaches zero, I then switch Nates to Oscar production.
I've come to the conclusion that 230+ Kotobuki engines are 230+ half built aircraft, so I might as well use them up as a pool of trainers or fighters in China.
But is that the right conclusion?
What do you all think?
Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh