Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release date
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation

 
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 >> Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 6:32:05 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Hi all,

i'm approaching that time in game where important choices must be made concerning the configuration of my LBA and CVequipped DBs and TBs.

What to do with the DBs? What to place on your surviving CVs and what to leave on land?
The choice is between the Grace and the 4th version of the Judy.

The Grace, despite being a DB, carries a Torp on normal range and 2x250kg bombs on extended.
The D4Y4 carries a deadly 800kg bomb on normal range (6) and a 500kg bomb on extended (8).

At first the Grace seems superior, but 2x250 Kg bombs is really a poor paylod late in the war, while the japanese CVs have so few torps to spare that the Jills aboard are usually more than enough to empty the magazines in a single shot.
The 800kg bomb is much more effective than an aerial torp and, on extended range, the 500kg bomb remains a very good weapon that can easily wreck an american flattop.

My choice is to use the Judy on CVs and leave the grace (with its great range and speed) for LBA units.

What do the others think?
Post #: 1
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 6:39:16 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18075
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
Doesn't the Grace, when set to DB profiles at normal range, carry an 800kg bomb? My understanding is that it is the more flexible of the two airframes-it can be used for torpedo or bomb attack at normal ranges, depending on its settings.

I'd have to look at the database to confirm this, however.

ETA: Isn't the D4Y3 the better Judy choice, with a SR=1? (At work now, just going from memory)

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 4/24/2013 6:40:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 6:42:25 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Doesn't the Grace, when set to DB profiles at normal range, carry an 800kg bomb? My understanding is that it is the more flexible of the two airframes-it can be used for torpedo or bomb attack at normal ranges, depending on its settings.

I'd have to look at the database to confirm this, however.

ETA: Isn't the D4Y3 the better Judy choice, with a SR=1? (At work now, just going from memory)


Tracker says otherwise...and the in-game database confirms it. But i would be happy to be mistaken

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 6:43:48 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Doesn't the Grace, when set to DB profiles at normal range, carry an 800kg bomb? My understanding is that it is the more flexible of the two airframes-it can be used for torpedo or bomb attack at normal ranges, depending on its settings.

I'd have to look at the database to confirm this, however.

ETA: Isn't the D4Y3 the better Judy choice, with a SR=1? (At work now, just going from memory)


The D4Y4 has a SR=1 too! So it's truly the best of the series. It has no defensive guns...but who really cares? Those unarmoured DBs are dead meat anyway when the escort fails to defend them

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 4
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 6:44:36 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18075
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Doesn't the Grace, when set to DB profiles at normal range, carry an 800kg bomb? My understanding is that it is the more flexible of the two airframes-it can be used for torpedo or bomb attack at normal ranges, depending on its settings.

I'd have to look at the database to confirm this, however.

ETA: Isn't the D4Y3 the better Judy choice, with a SR=1? (At work now, just going from memory)


Tracker says otherwise...and the in-game database confirms it. But i would be happy to be mistaken


Uhhh...which of the two questions were you referring to, GreyJoy?

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 5
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 6:49:22 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
About the bombload. The Grace carries either a torp or 2x250kg bombs unfortunately


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 6
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 6:50:47 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 2867
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Doesn't the Grace, when set to DB profiles at normal range, carry an 800kg bomb? My understanding is that it is the more flexible of the two airframes-it can be used for torpedo or bomb attack at normal ranges, depending on its settings.

I'd have to look at the database to confirm this, however.

ETA: Isn't the D4Y3 the better Judy choice, with a SR=1? (At work now, just going from memory)


The D4Y4 has a SR=1 too! So it's truly the best of the series. It has no defensive guns...but who really cares? Those unarmoured DBs are dead meat anyway when the escort fails to defend them


Without looking at relative speeds or ranges, the D4Y4 has my vote. It has an essentially equivalent payload when using bombs and, as you say, it doesn't eat up the already-low quantity of torps on board your CVs.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 7
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 7:01:08 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 787
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
Another point: D4Y4 is in an upgrade path; you have factories already producing the previous versions. Therefore, the supply cost is going to be less than the going through the "unique" Grace path


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/24/2013 7:02:09 PM >


_____________________________

"From now on, the more we work, the happier we will become. Let’s make the culture of Greater East Asia flourish more and more. In order that the peoples of Greater East Asia can communicate with each other, let’s learn Japanese"

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 8
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 9:12:10 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 2873
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Therefore, the supply cost is going to be less than the going through the "unique" Grace path


Unless you researched the Grace from day one with some smaller R&D factories and lovingly expanded them over 1942, which would work out about the same in supply expenditure compared with the Judy over the long term.

I don't think the Judy factories are that large at game start, if I recall. Then again, you're duplicating efforts which is what you were meaning I guess. You could just choose based on how the names strike you as well. Which of Grace or Judy comes across as the sexier aircraft?

That's how I tend to make those really tough production decisions. Time will tell how I make out.


< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 4/24/2013 9:16:25 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 9
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/24/2013 9:40:26 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 787
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
Correct, but Judy D4Y1 comes a lot sooner than Grace (4/43 vs 12/44 in scen1). Not accelerating Judys means keeping the old, slow, 250kg-bomb Val for much longer than I would like to

true D4Y1 is SR3, but I like the 500KG bomb and much higher speed

_____________________________

"From now on, the more we work, the happier we will become. Let’s make the culture of Greater East Asia flourish more and more. In order that the peoples of Greater East Asia can communicate with each other, let’s learn Japanese"

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 10
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/25/2013 11:00:44 PM   
AlaskanWarrior


Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
In reality the D4Y4 was strictly land based. It did not have a tail hook and was created solely for Kamikaze missions. The 800kg 'bomb' was not detachable. This aircraft should not be part of any carrier plane upgrade path.

_____________________________



(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 11
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/26/2013 5:22:02 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 2867
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

In reality the D4Y4 was strictly land based. It did not have a tail hook and was created solely for Kamikaze missions. The 800kg 'bomb' was not detachable. This aircraft should not be part of any carrier plane upgrade path.


Well....if it was designed for kamikazes, it wouldn't need a tail hook would it?

(in reply to AlaskanWarrior)
Post #: 12
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/26/2013 9:50:34 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3700
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Is there any advantage to going Grace, dismounting the former DB squadron and expanding the former TB squadron to full size? This would get you several extra land based air groups. I can see a disadvantage in that your CV bomber group can only pick bombs or torpedoes, limiting flexibility. However, you could always configure half the CV groups to carry bombs. This would both create mixed strike packages and ration torpedo use. The next day you switch loads so that the torpedo drained CV groups become the bomb carrying groups.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 13
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/26/2013 10:16:12 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7150
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Whatever get you the 800 kg bomb faster. I have been on the receiving end of these things and they are not fun. Plus is the Judy faster than the Grace? That sometimes helps.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 14
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/27/2013 4:42:31 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5752
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online
Grace is VERY fast and very manouverable. Specs on it say think Zero with a torp. So it should be 350 with 30 man in the game, however in Scen 1 it is in as 352 kts and 18 MAN.

It is unfortunate that in stock it can only carry 250kg bomb. They could carry anything up to the 800kg bomb, assuming these were available which is also debatable. Whether they did is a matter of debate as they were only deployed to 2? units in the HI and all the sources I read are somewhat contradictory. Truth is that I haven't actually read that they took a torp into action. The few accounts I have read are only bomb runs and the load outs are not clearly stated. Given the state of late war Japan, I would bet they were loaded with what was on hand, whatever that was. It is well documented that by late war IJ munitions quality was dropping rapidly as was quantity. So who knows what they actually flew with. Those pilots and mechanics who did know are sadly long gone ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/27/2013 12:27:26 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Is there any advantage to going Grace, dismounting the former DB squadron and expanding the former TB squadron to full size? This would get you several extra land based air groups. I can see a disadvantage in that your CV bomber group can only pick bombs or torpedoes, limiting flexibility. However, you could always configure half the CV groups to carry bombs. This would both create mixed strike packages and ration torpedo use. The next day you switch loads so that the torpedo drained CV groups become the bomb carrying groups.



AFAIK a TB group cannot be upgraded to the Grace cause the latter is considered a DB so it is in another upgrade path.
That's why i think the D4Y4 + the Jill remains a better choice for your CVs.
The 2x250kg bombs carried by the Jills aren't really usefull...so i don't see a viable strategy to waste your TBs pilot on a second day strike using when the torps are finished. Better to expand your DB groups, imho, and keep your TB groups in order to expend 2/3 of the torps on the first strike, so to let the surviving pilots use the remaining 1/3 torps on the second day, while your BIG DB groups will be able to use the 800kg bombs without any limitation

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 16
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/27/2013 3:14:18 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5752
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Is there any advantage to going Grace, dismounting the former DB squadron and expanding the former TB squadron to full size? This would get you several extra land based air groups. I can see a disadvantage in that your CV bomber group can only pick bombs or torpedoes, limiting flexibility. However, you could always configure half the CV groups to carry bombs. This would both create mixed strike packages and ration torpedo use. The next day you switch loads so that the torpedo drained CV groups become the bomb carrying groups.



AFAIK a TB group cannot be upgraded to the Grace cause the latter is considered a DB so it is in another upgrade path.
That's why i think the D4Y4 + the Jill remains a better choice for your CVs.
The 2x250kg bombs carried by the Jills aren't really usefull...so i don't see a viable strategy to waste your TBs pilot on a second day strike using when the torps are finished. Better to expand your DB groups, imho, and keep your TB groups in order to expend 2/3 of the torps on the first strike, so to let the surviving pilots use the remaining 1/3 torps on the second day, while your BIG DB groups will be able to use the 800kg bombs without any limitation

All original CV TB bomber groups have Grace in their upgrade path. With PDU ON, Grace will show as an option for all of the DB groups.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 4/27/2013 3:19:29 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 17
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/27/2013 3:21:55 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5752
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online
Grace+Judy is a strong combination. Both are fast (350kts), faster than their allied counterparts. Biggest drawback is neither are armored. So they tend to get in with their attacks, but get caught on the exit. Like all IJN engagements, bomber pilot and a/c losses will be high.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 18
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/28/2013 11:34:27 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2193
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: online
Personally i see B7A2 Grace working together with P1Y2 Frances as LBA.
Grace can reach 13 hex distance with 2x250kg bomb load and dive toward enemy while simultaneously Frances can start torpedo attack at that distance.
Both planes are fast, both have SR2, Frances have armor. And we all know that simultaneous dive and torpedo attack mix is giving best chances of success.



_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 19
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/29/2013 4:14:19 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7150
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Now the obvious question. Does anyone know if a Judy could get off a flight deck with a 800 kg bomb? I doubt it.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 20
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 4/29/2013 6:13:54 PM   
guctony


Posts: 434
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline
I would prefer grace as torp bombers and D4Y4 as dive bomber in the same CV. But I think 2x250 is better than 1x800 If you are going for allied CVs and merchants. In year 1944 when both plane is avaible your primary targets are CVs and landing ships. Non of them need 800 to be hurt. In my trials I conclude that 2x250 gives better hit ratio Then 1x800. Also in 1944 pilot quality will be a problem which sometimes causes TB use bombs instead of torpedos. So instead of having a TB with no accuracy having a TB with the accuracy of the DB seems a better option.

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 21
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/11/2013 7:28:49 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony

I would prefer grace as torp bombers and D4Y4 as dive bomber in the same CV. But I think 2x250 is better than 1x800 If you are going for allied CVs and merchants. In year 1944 when both plane is avaible your primary targets are CVs and landing ships. Non of them need 800 to be hurt. In my trials I conclude that 2x250 gives better hit ratio Then 1x800. Also in 1944 pilot quality will be a problem which sometimes causes TB use bombs instead of torpedos. So instead of having a TB with no accuracy having a TB with the accuracy of the DB seems a better option.

2x250kg is hard-coded replacement for torpedo (OK, THIS actually can be changed with current beta, but I do not think official Scenarios will be changed). But Japanese 250kg bomb is very weak. I had my US CV got 13 of them, and was still able to launch planes, so not much help against enemy CVs, even with higher hit ratio.

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 22
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/11/2013 12:08:39 PM   
guctony


Posts: 434
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline
In 1944 disabling a CV is better then doing nothing else I guess. . An injured CV means alot more disconfort then a destroyed CV. Even though I agree that sinking is better. When most of the time a 1944 air strike to an US CV task force means one way ticket. So any get though planes higher hitting ratio is better than bidding for one 800 bomb.

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 23
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/12/2013 8:23:39 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
If attack is not overwhelming, I would expect 4-7 bomb hits in best case - too few to disable CV, and damages would go mainly to SYS, so will be easily repaired in every port (250kg bombs even seems to be too weak to disable guns in most cases). I doubt Allied player will retire CV if it is still operational, and have almost no FLT damage.

I would generally exchange ONE hit with torpedo, over 10 hits with 250kg bombs. It have great chance to make over 50 combined damage (plus FLT). Two torpedo hits almost surely close any CV.

However, against CVEs, and non-armored ships 250kg bombs are sufficient, they should damage them seriously.
2 bombs in theory have twice chance to hit, than 1 bomb, but difference in penetration is far too high for this exchange (and sum of effects is also the same than 500kg, or even less, than 800kg) to be worth it.

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 24
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/12/2013 9:49:24 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5752
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

2x250kg is hard-coded replacement for torpedo (OK, THIS actually can be changed with current beta, but I do not think official Scenarios will be changed).

+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 25
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/13/2013 10:39:15 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12270
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

If attack is not overwhelming, I would expect 4-7 bomb hits in best case - too few to disable CV, and damages would go mainly to SYS, so will be easily repaired in every port (250kg bombs even seems to be too weak to disable guns in most cases). I doubt Allied player will retire CV if it is still operational, and have almost no FLT damage.

I would generally exchange ONE hit with torpedo, over 10 hits with 250kg bombs. It have great chance to make over 50 combined damage (plus FLT). Two torpedo hits almost surely close any CV.

However, against CVEs, and non-armored ships 250kg bombs are sufficient, they should damage them seriously.
2 bombs in theory have twice chance to hit, than 1 bomb, but difference in penetration is far too high for this exchange (and sum of effects is also the same than 500kg, or even less, than 800kg) to be worth it.



While I of course also preferre torp hits over bomb hits, it depends on the exchange ratio. Trying to sink a USN CV with two torp hits is like a chance of 1:5, usually I am able to save a CV from such a damage. Now if the carrier would be hit by 20 250kg bombs, I'd say the ship is sunk 100% of the time as that would mean several ammo and fuel storage explosions too, when the bombs alone would be enough to sink the carrier. I'd give it a 70/30 chance to have the flight deck closed after two torp hits but still, 20 bombs would sink it so I'd know what I preferre.


< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/13/2013 10:41:02 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 26
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/13/2013 10:48:29 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6178
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

If attack is not overwhelming, I would expect 4-7 bomb hits in best case - too few to disable CV, and damages would go mainly to SYS, so will be easily repaired in every port (250kg bombs even seems to be too weak to disable guns in most cases). I doubt Allied player will retire CV if it is still operational, and have almost no FLT damage.

I would generally exchange ONE hit with torpedo, over 10 hits with 250kg bombs. It have great chance to make over 50 combined damage (plus FLT). Two torpedo hits almost surely close any CV.

However, against CVEs, and non-armored ships 250kg bombs are sufficient, they should damage them seriously.
2 bombs in theory have twice chance to hit, than 1 bomb, but difference in penetration is far too high for this exchange (and sum of effects is also the same than 500kg, or even less, than 800kg) to be worth it.



While I of course also preferre torp hits over bomb hits, it depends on the exchange ratio. Trying to sink a USN CV with two torp hits is like a chance of 1:5, usually I am able to save a CV from such a damage. Now if the carrier would be hit by 20 250kg bombs, I'd say the ship is sunk 100% of the time as that would mean several ammo and fuel storage explosions too, when the bombs alone would be enough to sink the carrier. I'd give it a 70/30 chance to have the flight deck closed after two torp hits but still, 20 bombs would sink it so I'd know what I preferre.




Don't know guys. To be honest things also depend on which mod we're playing. I do play DBB, where the effect of the GP bombs have been reduced... now a 250kg Japanese bomb can still penetrate the deck of an American CV, but it's almost impossible to cause enough damage to really hurt her (I've been involved in not less than 3 CV encounters with allied CVs in DBB, and the 250kg bombs rarely caused enough damage to him)...while a 500kg bomb is able to really screw the day of a CV, cause it always penetrate it's deck and it has enough explosive power to easily create an ammo/fuel explosion.

My choice? I take 1 500kg (not to talk about the 800kg) over 2x250kg everyday, even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 27
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/13/2013 11:46:04 AM   
guctony


Posts: 434
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline
quote:

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.


Man I will not be able stop myself from quoting you. As I will try to use it in real life.....

No offence please

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 28
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/22/2013 7:29:10 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 432
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline
how to change in editor to that grace can carry 1 torp or 800 (500?)kg bomb on normal range mission ?

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 29
RE: Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation - 5/23/2013 12:34:55 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3687
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

how to change in editor to that grace can carry 1 torp or 800 (500?)kg bomb on normal range mission ?


Do not do that. Heed michaelm's warning in post #143 of this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3185062&mpage=5&key=800kg%2Cbomb�

Alfred

Edit. gave wrong post #

(in reply to czert2)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Late war japanese DBs. Choices and evaluation Page: [1] 2   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

0.203