Chez, If I had to choose between using 100 Betties or 100 B24s for the scenario you are providing, it would be the Betties, hands down. They use up fewer supplies, can be launched from smaller bases, and are more effective against shipping. Their only weakness is the higher loss rate - but it costs fewer supplies to replace them, I believe (could be wrong on that last one). They can also prevent a naval bombardment of their home base.
And I would choose the B-24 because that at the end of the month, the Japanese ships will all be in repair yards (or on their way), that every Japanese airfield within range will be heavily damaged, that the Japanese fighter force would be crewed by 40-something experience pilots and probably very short of pool aircraft.
You say you woiuld choose the Betty because it can be launched from a smaller airfield (lvl 4 vs lvl 5). So can the B-24, just with a reduced bomb load. Try a Betty from a level 3 aircrfield and see what you get. Not only no torps, but a reduced bombload to boot. The B-24 will even launch froma level 3 airfield at reduced numbers and load but it still launches.
The loss rate for the Betty will be horrendous, something on the order of 20%+ per mission even if the target is a naval force without fighter cover. At the end of 5-6 missions, you won't have enough left to do the job. I have yet to see a 4E shotdown by ships.
Yes, the allied player would suffer ship losses but they are replaceable (or respawn). Japanese losses aren't. And a japanese BB spending a year in a yard to repair is a BB that might as well be on the bottom of the ocean. By the time it comes out of port, the war situation will have changed drastically and its offensive capability has been neutered by allied air superiority, just as IRL. Not to mention the huge drain on supply and HI the repair requires.
Yes, it does cost fewer supply to replace a Betty but supply isn't an issue for the allied player, only its location. Supply is a major factor.
In the scenario I mentioned. The B-24 will sweep the seas of Japanese supply transports heading for Rabaul. The Bettys will be crumpled pieces of metal sitting on the bottom of the ocean due to allied LR CAP and lack of escort. That's assuming they can takeoff on a mission after an allied heavy bomb mission.
I have one game with LordMaul in which we have no restrictions on allied 4Es. I haven't seen an allied combatant that isn't a part of an invasion force in months (Feb 43) because he dosen't need to use them. He simply paves the way for invasion with 500+ heavies that destroy everything in their path. I'v emanaged to shoot down nearly 300 of them but he has a seemingly endless supply. This is why I insist on a restriction no more than 2 BGs of allied 4Es attacking any one target.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't want to see the one effective Japanese offensive weapon neutered to the point that it becomes useless. The allied player has many options to reduce the Betty effectiveness. The Japanese player has very few in comparison. Even a successful Japanese bombardment will have only a temporary effect on the 4Es. The allied player will have replaced any losses and repaired the airfield well before the severely damaged Japanese ships make it back to port, let alone to a repair yard.
One last point in regard to allied bombers interdicting Japanese bombardments. It doesn't take many hits to cause enough sys dam to drop the Japanese ships speed to the point that it can no longer scoot and shoot and avoid SBDs and Avengers. Just a few allied PTs at the base will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the bombardment and they may even torp a capital ship. And from what I've seen, allied PTs are nearly invincible to Japanese airpower. I've learned (and relearned) that point.
Anyways, like I said, I'm not trying to be unreasonable. I want a workable solution that is satisfactory to both sides.
Chez
