Durability

[Zigurat666]

Can anyone comment on how durability of aircraft relate to game turns? I cant really find a definition for it. Does that mean it can take more hits in combat before being shot down? or better survivability on long range missions? Would you prefer aircraft in the same category with higher speed/maneuver or durability?

[crsutton]

Well, there is no ideal package. Durability is pretty much what you said. The ability to take damage and survive. On paper the Tojo looks to be a better aircraft than the P40k, and in head to head combat is better. But I have noticed that while watching the replay that even with the smallest amount of damage a tojo almost always break off and get removed from the action. However, Allied fighters with higher durability, (and armor) will sometimes take damage and not break off but remain in the fight. In a big battle over the long term this can have an effect as more Allied planes are around for more rounds of combat and the lower durability Japanese air units get whittled down leading to eventual Allied tactical wins. And, as for the ultimate test watch zeros trying to shoot down B17s.

Opinions vary but I personally rate aircraft assets in this order.

1. speed
2. firepower
3. durability and armor
4. maneuver

Japanese planes that are faster and more maneuverable have a good edge over Allied planes (tojo comes to mind) but Allied planes eventually get faster and with superior firepower and durability, that seems to trump maneuver in my eyes.

[zuluhour]

Damn it CR! He's the enemy![:D] I do agree with your assessment of assets. Go O's!

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, there is no ideal package. Durability is pretty much what you said. The ability to take damage and survive. On paper the Tojo looks to be a better aircraft than the P40k, and in head to head combat is better. But I have noticed that while watching the replay that even with the smallest amount of damage a tojo almost always break off and get removed from the action. However, Allied fighters with higher durability, (and armor) will sometimes take damage and not break off but remain in the fight. In a big battle over the long term this can have an effect as more Allied planes are around for more rounds of combat and the lower durability Japanese air units get whittled down leading to eventual Allied tactical wins. And, as for the ultimate test watch zeros trying to shoot down B17s.

Opinions vary but I personally rate aircraft assets in this order.

1. speed
2. firepower
3. durability and armor
4. maneuver

Japanese planes that are faster and more maneuverable have a good edge over Allied planes (tojo comes to mind) but Allied planes eventually get faster and with superior firepower and durability, that seems to trump maneuver in my eyes.

Agreed.

DUR is what keeps the IJ A/C from strafing ... my losses are generally just too high to support. Whereas the allies get quite a few fighters with DUR >33 and can effectively strafe.

[KenchiSulla]

I've played both sides and must admit that I see many good allied pilots survive attacks that would have killed the pilot of a Japanese aircraft. Just one bad day and your IJ ace dies while pilot fatality for the allied (US mostly) is lower.....

[obvert]

+1 to all of the above

The durability of the various A6M versions is a great example of how the upgrades help. Most comments seem to be about speed and firepower, but durability also results in fewer ops losses in normal non-combat missions and better staying power in combat.

This is not only relevant to fighters, but to strike planes. It is one reason why some later 2E bombers make great kamis and get through late war flak more easily than their 1E counterparts. (Pax won't agree with me, but this is my experience). [:)]

Also if you look at some late war kami types like the Tsurugi, their durability is extremely low, so yes they are good planes in that role, but not as likely to make it to target as a Judy or a Grace.

[Gaspote]

I think durability help when getting bomb on the ground too.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I think durability help when getting bomb on the ground too.

No.

Alfred

[dorjun driver]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I think durability help when getting bomb on the ground too.

No.

Alfred

Alfred, stop being so sesquipedal.

[zuluhour]

I like concise.

[KenchiSulla]

I don't

[Gaspote]

I don't even consider just No as an answer. That's just disrespectful for me.

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I think durability help when getting bomb on the ground too.

No.

Alfred

Alfred, stop being so sesquipedal.

dorjun driver - It pains me to admit that I had to look "sesquipedal" up in the dictionary...<sigh>

Mac

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No.
Alfred

Alfred, stop being so sesquipedal.

dorjun driver - It pains me to admit that I had to look "sesquipedal" up in the dictionary...<sigh>
Mac

I love big words. I n fact I just got to use garguantuan in a sentence responding to an email. How good is that? Woof !!

Sesquipedalian. Nice big words..Lots of polysylabic stuff. Woof ! Alfred, you is da man. Ciao. JWE

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

ORIGINAL: Alfred




No.

Alfred

Alfred, stop being so sesquipedal.

dorjun driver - It pains me to admit that I had to look "sesquipedal" up in the dictionary...<sigh>

Mac

So did I. [;)]

[Itdepends]

Note that durability also appears to have a large impact on how long it takes to repair an aircraft since some changes were made in one of the betas. I noticed a large increase in downtime on 4E's as the allies.

[crsutton]

I impressed my wife once by correctly spelling hobbledehoy at a spelling bee and then knowing the definition. This is from a guy who regularly spells thier wrong....

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I don't even consider just No as an answer. That's just disrespectful for me.

And giving wrong answers, without caring about accuracy or utility is respectful.[8|] Back where I come from that would be viewed as treating the reader as a mug who can be sold the Brooklyn Bridge and if they are rich and gullible enough, the Empire State Building too.

"No" is a succinct answer which quickly discloses the truth without disclosing a value judgement.

Alfred

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I don't even consider just No as an answer. That's just disrespectful for me.

And giving wrong answers, without caring about accuracy or utility is respectful.[8|] Back where I come from that would be viewed as treating the reader as a mug who can be sold the Brooklyn Bridge and if they are rich and gullible enough, the Empire State Building too.

"No" is a succinct answer which quickly discloses the truth without disclosing a value judgement.

Alfred

Yes.

[Amoral]

One other place that durability comes into play is in converting Japanese aircraft factories.

When you change factories from one aircraft type to another the new factory will be damaged. How badly damaged depends on how close the durability of the two plane types is.

At the start of the game if you change your Sonia (dur=28) factory to Val (dur=28) it will take less damage than if you converted it to Sally (dur=40).