The “name” of a device does not matter, only the device data matters. Any Eng unit can always build, but if it has Anti-Armor <1, it cannot reduce forts. If it has Anti-Soft <9, it cannot AV. If it is “named” Construction or Labor Eng, but is a Type = 23 (squad), it will not build. If it also has a-a <1, and a-s <9, it won’t do anything but eat (i.e., nothing but ‘bodies’). So there is a matrix of different Eng squads that represent a mix of abilities; build stuff, reduce forts, able to AV, some of the above, none of the above. DaBigBabes uses this matrix (according to our appreciation as to how it falls out) to help limit in-game tempo, by limiting in-game infrastructure.
Shore Party is a sub-set of Nav Sup. Shore Party devices assist in loading/unloading but do not assist in repairing or rearming. Repair/rearm bases were very far and few between, for both sides, and thus with BigBabes, but both sides recognized an imperative for stevedoring and non-integral lift capability. Thus Shore Partys and a skoosh of code that lets them give an unload bonus to TFs. A Shore Party switch may be set for a Vehicle, such as an LVT-2 Amph Trac; It may be set for a Type = 24 Eng squad, like USA Port Srvc Sq, in which case it may also help build; It may be set for a Type = 23 Squad, like USA Amph Sup Sq.
Check the editor often, and become familiar with all the different kinds of units available. For example:
USMC Pioneer Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Constr Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, No Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Spec Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Base Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Port Svc Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Amph Sup Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
Naval Bombardments: Don Bowen
All bombardment TFs stand off from the bombardment target until night - then make a full speed run in to bombard. The standoff point is normally calculated based on the full speed of the TF. However, if waypoints are used and the last waypoint is closer to the target then the calculated stand off point, the game will use the last waypoint as the standoff point.
This allows players to control the standoff in a number of ways.
1. If you want the standoff closer to the target (for any reason) you can use a waypoint close to the target.
2. If you want the bombardment TF to be fully fueled and have all its op points, you can set a waypoint just beyond full speed stand off point and let the TF refuel (either itself or from a replenishment TF).
3. If you want the bombardment TF to delay bombardment for a day or so, use a waypoint with linger option.
There are interactions between the routing options, retirement allowed, reaction settings, and "normal" TF movement. Mostly they are very logical - one just needs to get used to them.
Amphib Unloading: Don Bowen
This one I did not know. So if you have say some xAPs in your invasion TF then once the APAs have unloaded the xAPs will unload faster? Could you elaborate a bit? How much help do they give?
OK, took a look at the code and I have to admit that I seem to have lied. Not only amphib ships can help in unload, but small beaching craft as well. So my answer a few posts up is incorrect. Empty LB, LCVP, LCM can help in unload. Not by any direct transfer of troops between ships, but by contributing to the new load unload rate for the TF. This is a calculated ability of the TF to unload "over the beach". Empty Amphib ships are great, naval transports (AP/AK) are good, merchant ships (xAP, etc) suck. I'm no longer a member of the development team and I do not feel that I can give exact formula, but the unload bonus can be substantial.
Taken from the release doc
-SingleCpuStart : Starts the game in single CPU mode. Switches to multi CPU mode if available later. We’ve found this to be useful on some multi-core systems, especially AMD processors.
-SingleCpuOrders : Starts the game in single CPU mode and stays in single CPU for the orders phase, switches to multi CPU mode for running the turn, then switches back to single mode for the next orders phase. We’ve found this to be useful on some multi-core systems, especially AMD processors. Use this or –SingleCpuStart, not both.
If either of the above are used with one of the -cpu# switches noted below, it will use the specified CPU, otherwise both of these switches default to the first CPU. If a -cpu# switch and one of these -Single switches are used, the turns will always be processed in multi processor mode.
-cpu# : (cpu1, cpu2, cpu3, cpu4) Switches set the cpu affinity for multi cpu systems. It will do nothing for single cores and will default to using all cores if a core is designated which is not there (for example using -cpu3 on a dual core system). We’ve found this to be very useful on some multi-core systems, especially Intel processors.
If used alone, the -cpu# switches will keep the game running on the CPU specified all the time. If used with the -SingleCpuStart switch, it will only use that core when starting the game. If used with the -SingleCpuOrders switch, it will stay in single CPU mode for starting and the orders phase, but will run in multicore. If one of the SingleCpu switches is used without a -cpu# switch, it will default to cpu 1 when it is in single core.
-multiaudio : Invokes a fix that changes audio timing for multicore machines.
-dd_sw : Handles DirectDraw via Software. We’ve found this can make a huge difference on many systems as far as reducing interface lag and making button clicking in-game more responsive. On a few newer systems this can cause some visual glitches and slow combat animations though, so give it a try and remove it if it’s not ideal on your system.
-f -px1920 –py1200 for a 1920x1200 monitor in full screen mode
-w –px1680 –py1050 for windowed mode, so that the window is within desktop
-colorBlind : Support for color blindness
-deepColor : Enables 32 bit color, intended for Full Screen mode
-altFont : Enables alternate in-game font (Lucida Sans Unicode)
-w : Windowed mode
-wd : Windowed mode, daily autosaves
-ww : Windowed mode, weekly autosaves
-fd : Full screen, daily autosaves
-fw : Full screen, weekly autosaves
-r : Show Roads
-autosave : Daily autosave
-archive : Put data reports in archive directory
-skipVideo : Skip the intro video when starting the game
-fixedArt : Will not use rotating images
Just to clarify air transport.
It's done very simplistically if you compare it to the naval transport model.
Firstly, a device with a load cost higher than 9 cannot be airlifted (i.e. friendly base to friendly base). Secondly, a device with a load cost higher than 7 cannot be air-dropped (i.e. paratroop assault).
The capacity of transport aircraft is almost moot if it is below 7500. All transport aircraft with capacities below 7500 are able to airlift/airdrop either 2 Aviation Support devices or 1 Squad/Engineer/Device. If an aircraft has a capacity of 7500 or higher, then it can airlift/airdrop either 4 Aviation Support devices or 2 Squads/Engineers/Devices.
So, whether a transport aircraft has a capacity of 2000 or 6000, both aircraft will only be able to transport only one squad.
There are very few aircraft with a capacity of 7500 or higher, and then almost exclusively Allied (I believe the Emily transport is the only Japanese one).
CS to CVL Conversion
After having muddled through the mystery that surrounds the scout cruiser conversions I thought I would lay out what I have learned for the benefit of others. If you are reading this you may have decided the convert some or all of your scout cruisers to CVL's. If you are unsure there are several threads laying out the pro's and con's.
This information applies to Scenario 1, with the latest official patch, V18.104.22.168o6i
You start the scenario with 3 scout cruisers, Mizuho, Chitose, and Chiyoda, a fourth cruiser, Nisshin will arrive about 3 months into the game.
If you decide to do the conversions I strongly recommend that you do it as soon as they become available. It takes 300 days to complete.
The Chitose and Chiyoda are treated as "Upgrades". This means that if you have the default set to "Yes" on the main ship display, when all the conditions are met, they will automatically begin to upgrade to CVL's when disbanded into the proper port. Here's the rub, on these two ships not all the conditions for upgrade are apparent. You may upgrade these ships as of Nov. 1, 1942. They require a "repair" yard of 50. These two ships can only be upgraded in TOKYO. In scenario 1 the Tokyo repair yard starts at 10, you will need to build it up to 50 before Nov. 1, 1942. Leave the two float plane squadrons on the ships, they will upgrade to a fighter squadron (21 planes) and a torpedo squadron (9 planes). The CVL now has 27 torpedoes and the capacity has gone from 24 to 30 planes. If you pull the float plane squadrons off before conversion they will not upgrade and will remain as float planes.
The Mizuho and Nisshin are treated as "Conversions". This means you must disband them into a proper port and click through the conversion buttons. You may convert these two scout cruisers on Dec. 1, 1942. They require a "Repair" yard of 25. Any repair yard will do. You may remove the float plane squadrons before conversion or not. These squadrons do not upgrade and will be place on the airfield at the port if they are left on board. These CVL's have no torpedo capacity but the plane capacity has improved to 30. The Mizhho will gain 2 knots of speed, from 22 to 24. (Racing heart doesn’t fail me now!)
Effects on CAP with large formation/Numbers by GreyJoy
However, I'm far from having understood how CAP really works, however i learnt something from these tests.
Let's try to summarize what i think to have learnt:
1. "fighters being recalled" (so to say "fighters out of position and not able to engage"): What effects this variable is the range of fighters on CAP. 0 range means all the fighters will loiter (sp!?) in the given hex. The more you increase this value (range) the more fighters will get caught while CAPing another hex inside the range-arc set.
2. "scrambling fighters": tests didn't give me a decisive answer but it seems that there's a dice and roll about the chance that those fighters not devoted directly to CAP can scramble. my tests show a % % of 20 out of 100...not that much, so don't rely too much in scrambling fighters. There also seems to be another hard code inner limit concerning the numbers of fighters that can be scrambled...above a certain limit of fighters devoted on CAP it seems that they never scramble (but this may also be connected with the consistency of the incoming strike).
3. "Firing passes limit": we already knew that this limit existed. These tests have only showed me that it is absolutely useless to have more than 300 fighters at 100% CAP on a given hex...above that number the other fighters simply don't engage.
4. "Escort vs. CAP": again we've seen that CAP can be easily overwhelmed. You basically need 4 times the number of engaging fighters to overcome the escort. So, given the 200 (300) firing passes limit, probably any strike with more than 50 escort will enable the bombers to get through without much of a problem.
5. "CAP altitude and efficiency": obviously the closer to the bomber altitude, the better. But there's something more: a GAP in altitude of 9,000 feet between the CAP and the incoming bombers is treated by the code as a HUGE altitude...often enough to let the bombers easily slip below the CAP.
6. "Radar": basically CV/CVLs have radars that gives (at best) you some 35-40 minutes of warning, while surface ships and CVEs give you an avg of 25/28 minutes... often the time needed to get a group to dive from 15k feet to 8k feet (escort altitude) is between 22 and 30 minutes... so be aware that time is not on your side when LRCAPPING amphib TFs....
The KB Kate pilots are about 50-60 ASW now, and improving. I put them on 2,000 ft to take advantage of their high naval bombing skill. When the KB is not in action they are at 40% ASW 40% training 20% rest. When it moves I bump that to 50% ASW 10% search as they leave port, with Vals on naval attack 50% search 2k ft. Just for the area around the Solomons where the subs are concentrated.
Engineers and Base building
Kamikaze Activation per MichaelM:
Base must have an AF 1+. This would exclude the 'dot' bases unless they are built up.
There is no limitation such that the base has to have been occupied by the Japanese and re-captured.
If the base is in range (21 sea hexes) of TOKYO (base #252), TAKAO (base #330) or SAIGON (base #435), is not located in China/Tibet and controlled by Allied player and 1944+, then the kamikazes (converting groups to kamikaze mode,as distinct from the occasional plane turning into a kamikaze prior to 1944 due to damage) are activated.
Per Don Bowen:
Build local minesweeping TFs with AMc at your major ports and leave them there.
Use small patrol types (YP, ML, HDML, even SC and MGB) for local ASW patrol
Escort small convoys, barge traffic, and landing craft Task Forces with the same ships
Barges that carry fuel can refuel other barges (in the same TF) at sea. If you order a barge TF to load supplies and set the destination before loading takes place, and the barges do not have enough range to make it to that destination, 1/4th of the barges will load fuel instead of supply for refueling in route.
For a troop TF you must create a separate barge TF, load it with fuel, and merge it with the barge TF carrying troops.
"Remain on Station" means stay where I put you.
"React" means move to attack any detected enemy nearby.
The two orders are contradictory and the game will ignore "Remain on Station" if "React" is ordered. Reacting will clear the "Remain on Station" order so the TF will return to home port after reacting.
witpqs is right. If you want a TF to be in an area and to react if enemy are detected nearby, use a combination of "Patrol" and "React". You can use a single Patrol Hex to emulate "Remain on Station".
There are a few other items involved in the determination to react. One of your TFs might pass, others might not.
Relative strength of the TF and the possible react-to TF.
Relative speed of the two
(for both, as well as is known about the enemy TF, including fog of war)
Ammo and fuel state of your TF
TF Commander's aggression rating (only if reaction is into dangerous waters (shallow, under enemy air cover).
WEATHER: by Labaron
Actually, higly abstracted, the advanced weather model does exactly that. It simulates a big system, and from this baseline calculates the chances for local weather.
The WitP map is split into 9 squares. Those squares represent the big weather systems. The big weather system is a modifier for the chances of local weather phenomena to occur. So, if the square predicts "clear", there is a very high chance that local weather also shows "clear" as an average, but this does not mean it rules out 2-3 hexes where "severe storms" will occur. The obvious opposite happens when a square predicts "thunderstorms". There is a chance for "clear" to occur, but the baseline is set for much worse weather.
So, you have two indicators you can base your forecast on:
1) the weather square, as an indicator for the probabilities of specific weather to occur in a large area
2) the local "mouse over" prediction as an indicator for that single hex.
Both informations are important. If, for example, I see the mouseover prediction for "clear", but the hex is located in a square which predicts "thunderstorms", I lower the reliability of the local prediction.
With advanced weather on, and by combining area and local weather data, you can get weather information pretty similar to the WWII capabilities, with the possible exception of very late war. Usually, for a certain area, I can guess the weather up to 2 days in advance with a 60-70% reliability.
Now: The only thing that switching off advanced weather does, is it reset all squares to "party cloudy", which is one of the least reliable weather systems according to my experience. It reduces the chance for very bad weather to occur, but practically eliminates the ability to predict weather at all. Something I personally dislike.
IMHO advanced weather is the way to go, more so as it reduces the too high mission fruequency in WitP, which is a good thing, but YMMV.
As a sidenote: There IS a slight realism problem resulting from weather in general. TFs, even more CV TFs, moved with the weather and often used weather to their advantage. To launch planes they moved into clear areas, to hide they moved into rainsqualls. Those are tactical details pretty impossible to replicate ingame, and this can lead to more difficulties with weather ingame as it was the case in reality.
As a sidenote II: I have never noted the reported "advanced weather ON means thunderstorms all the time" situations that are reported by some except as the usual exaggerated comments after somebody witnessed a week of bad weather in a specific area. On average "advanced weather" ON results in worse weather than the simplified model, true, but with the benefit of better predictability.
Sweeps & LRCAP by Obvert
Still, if your game allows it, (we've outlawed offensive LR CAP), use less good models on the LR CAP mission, like the Hellcats. The Corsairs are sweepers, only. They are your best in my opinion and nothing Japanese works at better than 1:3 against them in the best of conditions.
Alternate days for sweeping groups. Keep them fresh. Make sure you sweep with 4-6 groups a day though, and the later ones should be more effective. Take on the edges first if he sets them to cover an area bigger than 0 hex. The effects on moral and fatigue accumulate over time, and his pilot quality will still go down while you're getting 2:1 if you don't make mistakes by sending in bombers and giving 50 kills for free with the escorts.
If you use 4Es, make it a hammer. No half way. 250-300 at a time. They usually don't need escorts if the sweeps go in first and if you're not taking on the THE base. Make sure they're far enough back that they come in last (from a level 9 base with good support), not too far that they fragment extremely. But if your game still allows offensive LR CAP with bombing this is not such a problem. Also the strafing B-25D-1s are your best sweepers with a 58 defensive gun rating. Throw 100 of those at him after some sweeps and they're better than than 4Es at punching through. Shouldn't be since they actually have only one defensive turret, but use it while it's there.
Vary everything all of the time. No patterns. No milkruns. Nothing he can adapt to. Don't even use the P-40s. Rear area CAP only. Only use your best fighters on sweeps and LR CAP.
Really though, as mentioned above, don't go for the knockout until you've danced and jabbed for a few rounds. If he can put up a 400-500 plane CAP here, then some other place is not covered. Hit that. Make him LR CAP something. Get the CAP tired, spread out and the service 3 planes damaged. Then hit hard.
Air by 1275psi
I want to step out of the story here, and comment on the game.
I rarely, very rarely have any co ordination issues, or bombers arrive before fighters, or unescorted strikes.
This is how I do it.
1/ I spend vast amounts of PP on making sure that squadrons are assigned to air HQ's in range
2/ I try to never, ever overstack a field
3/ for a big day like todays effort:
I first stand down every group in the game
Then, in the order I want planes to fly, I issue the orders, ie Ogowas' eagles to sweep, then the bombers , I select a bomber group, select its fighter group, always from the same field. I always start closest to the target, working out in range.
If groups are over 10 fatigue, they are not selected!
If groups are under 80 moral, they are not selected!
This, I confidently say, after 4 years of war, works.
CV Reacting by Alfred
Where to begin?
The situation presented by Lokasenna is quite complex with many relevant actors of which very little hard evidence has been provided. Eg exactly which TF followed which, what were the specific orders and reactions, all the enemy DLs, fuel/ammo status for each (all surface and CV TFs) TF, the air power status and so on to mention just a few. There is a lot of data which is germane and I daresay most players would not be fully aware that it comes into play when dealing with naval reactions.
So rather than directly trying to explain precisely what happened here, I shall go through the relevant considerations that apply to reacting task forces. This should be of value because the manual does not do a good job in explaining the naval reaction concept. Having access to all the data, Lokasenna can then see if some anomaly has arisen.
1. Naval reaction is only available to combat TFs. Non combat TFs such as Transport, Cargo etc have neither the option to set a reaction range nor will react towards an enemy TF. Non combat TFs however may, under certain circumstances, retreat away from the enemy.
2. Due to technical coding issues, there is no reaction towards a sub TF. An ASW TF will not react towards a detected sub TF. The ASW TF may engage in combat with a detected sub TF if it comes across it in a hex traversed during the ASW TF normal or patrol movement path but it will not deviate from it's normal or patrol movement path towards the sub TF.
3. There are 2 distinct types of naval reaction. Type (A) is based on seahex range and applies to all types of combat TF, be they surface, carrier, sub et al task forces, whilst type (B) is based on hex range and applies only to a carrier TF. It is type (B) which is meant to be explained by s.6.3.4 of the manual. Much of the confusion expressed by players over carrier TF reacting is due to the fact that both types of reaction are in play and not just s.6.3.4 of the manual.
4. The max react button on the TF screen is misunderstood. Its primary function is to toggle on/off whether a naval reaction might occur. Set the reaction button to a 0 range setting tells the code to not check for a type (A) reaction BUT remember that a CV TF also answers to a type (B) reaction where the 0 range setting can be overridden.
5. A reaction range setting >0 brings into play a type (A) reaction. It does very little otherwise per se. On 14 July 2010 JWE (aka Symon) stated:
"React just means that a TF is orientated to do something, somewhere. So 'react' means 'what to do -if' and the number is how close."
Players who find JWE's statement to be somewhat underwhelming do so because they erroneously ascribe too much value to the reaction button. Probably Don Bowen's comment of 25 March 2013 conveys the concept better
"'React' means move to attack any detected enemy nearby".
The entire subject of naval reaction was much discussed by the devs during AE development. To give a feel for the sort of issues they had to grapple with consider what does a TF with a 6 hex naval reaction range setting really mean. Does it mean reacting
• only 6 hexes from the initial start position, or
• 6 hexes from each hex along the path, or
• 6 hexes from the current position of the TF (including any prior reaction)
The final decision was that it could mean any of the above. For example, what should be the outcome when a TF with a naval reaction of 6 moves detects an enemy TF 6 hexes distant, moves 6 hexes towards the enemy which in turn during the same timeframe has moved 2 hexes further away. Would a highly aggressive pursuing TF commander simply say "Fair cop guv, you got me, we'll stop the pursuit now". Accordingly, it was coded so that the more aggressive the TF commander is the more likely he is to order continued reaction. Conversely, the less aggressive is the commander or the less favourable conditions present for a reaction, the sooner a reaction move is called off or not even commenced.
What all this means is that a reaction range setting of 6 does not mean that a reacting TF is restricted to a 6 hex reaction move towards the detected enemy TF. Nor does it mean that the enemy TF will never be reacted towards if it is located at 7 or more hexes distance. It is all governed by the suite of factors taken into account in determining when naval reaction occurs, and this is without taking into account the ever present random factor in the game. Range is therefore not set in concrete.
6. Unlike classical WITP, naval movement in AE is on a hex by hex basis. The naval reaction algorithm is checked every single hex travelled through. Furthermore, excluding the factors which terminate or prevent in the first place a naval reaction which are listed in point 8 below, there is no limit to the number of enemy TFs that a reacting TF can move towards or engage. Also a reacting TF can switch targets in the middle of a reaction move if a closer or better target is detected.
7. Naval reaction is not dependent on the TF's movement orders. A TF with "remain on station" orders but also given a reaction range, will react and override the remain on station order and return home after the reaction (which is why one should never give a reaction range to a remain on station TF) whereas other movement orders (eg patrol, follow, waypoints) would see the TF react and subsequently return to its previous movement orders. In all instances a naval reaction move is possible only against a detected enemy TF, the higher the DL, the more likely reaction will result.
8. The naval reaction algorithm has the following checks:
• detection levels
• relative strength of both reactor and reactee TF
• relative speed of both reactor and reactee TF
• where reaction entails moving into dangerous waters (eg shallow water, under enemy air cover), the aggressiveness rating of the TF commander
• ammo and fuel levels
• hex characteristics (deep water being preferred)
• damage and ops points levels of ships in the TF
• range to enemy TF
• in the case of a CV TF, the number of operational aircraft on board
• in the case of a CV TF, the number of remaining aircraft sorties
• known enemy minefields
• in the case of a sub TF, a naval reaction will not occur into a medium or large sized port
• and the ever present Grigsby random
Each combat TF with a range reaction >0 set is checked against these criteria on every hex it travels. In the case of a CV TF, it is checked for both type (A) and type (B) naval reactions.
9. The point of type (B) and s.6.3.4 of the manual is to cover the unique combat situation which only applies to carriers. For all other types of task forces, naval combat only occurs when both friendly and enemy TF (or enemy base) are co-located on the same hex. This is not the case with carriers, whose aircraft can strike at an enemy TF or base located in a different hex. Thus type (A) naval reaction is all about bringing the two opposing masses into direct contact whereas the type (B) naval reaction is about facilitating the activation of aircraft.
10. To round off, I'll provide a pertinent example because I strongly suspect the principle it demonstrates exists in Lokasenna's situation.
TF #1 is an amphibious TF.
TF #2 is a surface combat TF. It has been given movement orders to follow TF #1 and has also been given a naval reaction range of 6.
If an enemy surface TF is detected and all the relevant boxes are ticked, TF #2 will react towards the enemy because the follow order tells it to protect TF #1 and its own reaction range tells it to move towards the enemy anyway. Remember a reaction move overrides existing movement orders (see point 7 above).
If, however, TF #2 does not have a follow TF #1 order, then it will not react towards the enemy in order to protect TF #1 but will only react on the basis of the threat/opportunity to itself alone. Most players will not notice this situation because they usually set following TFs at a range of zero and hence any enemy TF is simultaneously a threat to both friendly TFs which are in the same hex.
Air Production by Lowpe
Obvert wrote the book on late war night fighter defense, and I was an avid pupil at the time.
In my game against Tiemanj, I was able to put together a strategy that really minimized night bombing, to the point that for the most part the Allies pursued a daytime strategy.
Obvert proposed no 4E ground bombing as a HR. I think this speaks volumes for his planned usage of 4Es. I am expecting early and often night bombing especially of places like Magwe.
To counter I have a strong r&d program and a holistically zen approach:
Irving-s (size 30 x2): It is the first and critical night fighter to get. Many bad mouth it, but in 1943 it does well, especially against 2E night bombers. The Sa version is a marked step up, has an extra gun which lets the Irving fight longer, and has radar as of 6/44 I believe. Both factories will probably research the -sa version, depending upon game events.
France-s (size 30 x2): The best NF in the game. Hands down imho. Perhaps an argument can be made for the Myrt being that it is single engine (but the lack of armor is a telling disadvantage I think)?
Zero NF: (size 30 x1): Carrier capable, and allows for some modest resizing of a few NF squadrons.
Nick D: (size 30 x1): This should insure it arrives roughly in time with the early B29 squadrons. You need Nicks for their sheer volume.
Dinah NF: (size 30 x1): Important to get so that some recon squadrons can be opened up to the NF tree.
Peggy 109-I (size 30 x2): Armored, durable, fast enough if just barely. If I make it this far will become the primary Army NF.
Myrt NF (size 30 x1): Because Pax likes them, also because they seemed to do better than their stats would suggest. I hope I live long enough to find out.
Denko: trash. SR way too high, radar activates late.
RandY: trash. Radar activates way too late, arrives too late.
Judy: cheap single engine and fairly fast, but barely armed and you don't need it to unlock any NF squadrons. Not CV capable.
The best NF are armored, 360mph+, with good and accurate cannons and radar, low SR. Doesn't exist, so we will make do with the above choices turning all 21 or 22 possible NF squadrons to achieve mass.
AA is key. Searchlights are nice and those AA units with them will be prioritized to likely night bombing bases, but radar is very important. The biggest deterrent early is to have something flying that will distract the bombers in addition to the AA-- my preferred choices will be Petes in port, and the Dinah Fighter when she comes along. M-M has reported good results with Randy F and Nicks.