Long list of newbie questions

[Chernobyl]

More newbie questions! I'm still learning about the game. All friendly/constructive answers are appreciated!


-Why do players rush to get the upgrades for the Oscar and the Zero? Honestly it seems like the only fighter worth getting is is the George. Am I missing something? I'm looking at the stats and the George beats the pants off any other fighter the Japanese get before 1945. Moreover, I can't even tell if the upgrades for the Zero make it better or worse than the A6M2, and even the later versions of the Oscar have a pathetic gun value.

-Is it me or is the standard scenario heavily weighed in the Allies' favor? Looking at the reinforcement schedule of all types of ships, I'd be amazed if the Japanese Navy isn't wiped out by the end of 1944. I'm actually a little surprised that no one is playing Ironman in the AAR section. It seems more like a fair fight to me! Right now I'm playing Hakko Ichiu with reliable torpedoes off and allied damage control off.

-I think I have some misunderstandings of how industry works. What is this I am hearing about how you want to save Heavy Industry points? Why would I want to save points and not just immediately put them into production or research? And how do I know how much I want to be producing in armaments and vehicles? Finally, I gather that increasing (always doubles when you click) the production/research of an aircraft/engine causes no damage, but you want to research 30 engines at a time in each slot for some efficiency reason. Is this still true or is that outdated information?

-I read in some other thread about B-24E bombers taking over the game. Some guy sends a large number of George fighters against the bombers, and the bombers win handily. Apparently they are so strong that the joke is you use them to escort your fighters. Is this no longer true due to patch nerfs, or are certain 4 engine bombers still capable of shooting down even the best Japanese fighters regardless of the odds?

-Are airfield strikes even worth doing? The pearl harbor attack never seems to destroy nearly as many planes on the ground as the historical raid did. Even worse for the Clark field raids (historical first turn setting): I only destroy a few fighters and maybe a B-17 or two when historically the base was hit extremely hard and most of the aircraft were destroyed. What gives? Oh and finally it doesn't seem to matter how many "runway strikes" you perform, or at least I don't notice any effect.

-Most land units seem to have a deficiency in support. There are a few exceptions, but I am under the impression that a unit's fighting strength is directly affected by its support to requirement ratio. Is this true? Now it seems like there are some HQ units that provide oodles of excess support, but they're initially placed far behind the front lines. Shouldn't they be up front in the same hexes as the impressive under-supported divisions?

-Is there any downside (besides a possible lack of planes and pilots) to stripping my carriers of dive bombers and using only fighters and torpedo bombers? The Val only gets 1x250kg bomb which is insufficient, so why not use only Kates? Similarly for the Americans, they get carrier-capable fighter planes that can drop bombs. Assuming equal payload, is there any reason to go with a dive bomber over a fighter?

-How important is it to take Wake? If I just left it in Allied hands would I regret it? I'm also considering ignoring Guam and northern New Guinea in favor of other more important early targets. It seems like I can easily leave these for later. Am I wrong?

[SpitfireIX]

-Is it me or is the standard scenario heavily weighed in the Allies' favor? Looking at the reinforcement schedule of all types of ships, I'd be amazed if the Japanese Navy isn't wiped out by the end of 1944. I'm actually a little surprised that no one is playing Ironman in the AAR section. It seems more like a fair fight to me! Right now I'm playing Hakko Ichiu with reliable torpedoes off and allied damage control off.

That's because World War II was heavily weighted in the Allies' favor IRL. And the IJN was effectively wiped out by the end of 1944 IRL. If you're looking for a more balanced scenario you might try one of the campaigns.

-Are airfield strikes even worth doing? The pearl harbor attack never seems to destroy nearly as many planes on the ground as the historical raid did. Even worse for the Clark field raids (historical first turn setting): I only destroy a few fighters and maybe a B-17 or two when historically the base was hit extremely hard and most of the aircraft were destroyed. What gives? Oh and finally it doesn't seem to matter how many "runway strikes" you perform, or at least I don't notice any effect.

The game engine isn't perfect; combat results are designed for normal situations; even with the December 7 surprise rule in effect, you are unlikely to do as well as the Japanese did historically; planes are assumed to be at least somewhat dispersed, and possibly camouflaged and in revetments. Also bear in mind that, even taking into account surprise, the Japanese were very lucky to achieve the results they did.

As for runway bombing, having been on the receiving end of plenty of Japanese attacks, I can assure you that it does have an effect. However, if the target has plenty of engineering vehicles and supplies, the damage will likely be repaired quickly.

-Is there any downside (besides a possible lack of planes and pilots) to stripping my carriers of dive bombers and using only fighters and torpedo bombers? The Val only gets 1x250kg bomb which is insufficient, so why not use only Kates? Similarly for the Americans, they get carrier-capable fighter planes that can drop bombs. Assuming equal payload, is there any reason to go with a dive bomber over a fighter?

Other than being ahistorical (but if you want to play that way, that's your choice; it's just a game after all), I think there's a bonus if you attack a task force with both torpedo and dive bombers simultaneously. Also, dive bombers are more accurate in some situations.

-How important is it to take Wake? If I just left it in Allied hands would I regret it? I'm also considering ignoring Guam and northern New Guinea in favor of other more important early targets. It seems like I can easily leave these for later. Am I wrong?

If you don't take Wake the Americans will most likely use it as a forward submarine base, which will be A Bad Thing for Japan.

[Lcp Purcell]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

-Why do players rush to get the upgrades for the Oscar and the Zero? Honestly it seems like the only fighter worth getting is is the George. Am I missing something? I'm looking at the stats and the George beats the pants off any other fighter the Japanese get before 1945. Moreover, I can't even tell if the upgrades for the Zero make it better or worse than the A6M2, and even the later versions of the Oscar have a pathetic gun value.

Well first you need to divide your thoughts on IJNAF & IJAAF the army fighter pilots will never get to fly a George. Also the George can not fly from a carrier just the Zero line. while gun value is key the most important factor may be airspeed, that is the factor which gets those guns into play. or gets you away from the enemy guns. upgrades in the zero line are mostly to the airspeed.

For Army Air players expand Oscar production to cover the early days of the war, but in my mind the Tojo is the most important Army fighter. great airspeed, fairly good gun value, It has the best climb rate of any Japaneses fighter which is important for CAP when part of the squadron is on stand by on the ground and they need to climb to the target. Then the Tojo IIc gets a point of armor which helps survivability a lot, and a little better guns.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lcp Purcell

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

-Why do players rush to get the upgrades for the Oscar and the Zero? Honestly it seems like the only fighter worth getting is is the George. Am I missing something? I'm looking at the stats and the George beats the pants off any other fighter the Japanese get before 1945. Moreover, I can't even tell if the upgrades for the Zero make it better or worse than the A6M2, and even the later versions of the Oscar have a pathetic gun value.

Well first you need to divide your thoughts on IJNAF & IJAAF the army fighter pilots will never get to fly a George. Also the George can not fly from a carrier just the Zero line. while gun value is key the most important factor may be airspeed, that is the factor which gets those guns into play. or gets you away from the enemy guns. upgrades in the zero line are mostly to the airspeed.

For Army Air players expand Oscar production to cover the early days of the war, but in my mind the Tojo is the most important Army fighter. great airspeed, fairly good gun value, It has the best climb rate of any Japaneses fighter which is important for CAP when part of the squadron is on stand by on the ground and they need to climb to the target. Then the Tojo IIc gets a point of armor which helps survivability a lot, and a little better guns.

While you're waiting 1 1/2 to 2 years for your Georges and Franks you still have to fight with something. Better models of the planes that have versions can also be more easily researched than planes that appear only later in the war. The upgrade paths allow research factories to upgrade without damage to move through the line and get later models much sooner than IRL. Also, although the George is good, it's also fighting much better Allied planes by the time it arrives.

In the early war the A6M2 is mostly dominant and the Ki-43 Ic is at least effective, but only because they're flying against Buffalos, P-40Es and even Chinese biplanes. Each 6 months the available planes for the Allies get much better and the ones for the Japanese get only marginally better. So if you can get a model 'early' you can at least hold your own for a while (at least until the P-47 thud shows up).

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lcp Purcell

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

-Why do players rush to get the upgrades for the Oscar and the Zero? Honestly it seems like the only fighter worth getting is is the George. Am I missing something? I'm looking at the stats and the George beats the pants off any other fighter the Japanese get before 1945. Moreover, I can't even tell if the upgrades for the Zero make it better or worse than the A6M2, and even the later versions of the Oscar have a pathetic gun value.

Well first you need to divide your thoughts on IJNAF & IJAAF the army fighter pilots will never get to fly a George. Also the George can not fly from a carrier just the Zero line. while gun value is key the most important factor may be airspeed, that is the factor which gets those guns into play. or gets you away from the enemy guns. upgrades in the zero line are mostly to the airspeed.

For Army Air players expand Oscar production to cover the early days of the war, but in my mind the Tojo is the most important Army fighter. great airspeed, fairly good gun value, It has the best climb rate of any Japaneses fighter which is important for CAP when part of the squadron is on stand by on the ground and they need to climb to the target. Then the Tojo IIc gets a point of armor which helps survivability a lot, and a little better guns.

While you're waiting 1 1/2 to 2 years for your Georges and Franks you still have to fight with something. Better models of the planes that have versions can also be more easily researched than planes that appear only later in the war. The upgrade paths allow research factories to upgrade without damage to move through the line and get later models much sooner than IRL. Also, although the George is good, it's also fighting much better Allied planes by the time it arrives.

In the early war the A6M2 is mostly dominant and the Ki-43 Ic is at least effective, but only because they're flying against Buffalos, P-40Es and even Chinese biplanes. Each 6 months the available planes for the Allies get much better and the ones for the Japanese get only marginally better. So if you can get a model 'early' you can at least hold your own for a while (at least until the P-47 thud shows up).

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod


-Is it me or is the standard scenario heavily weighed in the Allies' favor? Looking at the reinforcement schedule of all types of ships, I'd be amazed if the Japanese Navy isn't wiped out by the end of 1944. I'm actually a little surprised that no one is playing Ironman in the AAR section. It seems more like a fair fight to me! Right now I'm playing Hakko Ichiu with reliable torpedoes off and allied damage control off.

Historically, it was never a fair fight. The United States alone had ten times the industrial capacity of Japan. Even accounting for the effort against Germany there was still plenty left over to squash Japan. The challenge as Japan is seeing how long you can hold out or do better. Winning outright is rare.

[Mundy]

If you ignore Wake and Guam, against another human player, you may find unwanted airial reinforcements making their way east. Planes like the SB2U have a pretty good ferry range.

Ed-

[Chernobyl]

New question:

So carriers have limited torpedoes, but it seems that if the number left is less than the size of the torpedo group, then they won't use the remainder at all. For instance Akagi has 27 torpedo planes and a 45 torpedoes. After it uses 27 of them on the first strike, it doesn't rearm ANY of the planes with torpedoes for a strike the next day! Am I doing something wrong or is this just a 'feature'?

Oh and why does an airgroup that is USING TORPEDOES always have that text in red?

[Puhis]

Carrier planes can use all torpedoes. If there's less torpedoes than planes, some of the planes are using bombs. Carriers also have limited bombs (called sorties).

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

Historically, it was never a fair fight. The United States alone had ten times the industrial capacity of Japan. Even accounting for the effort against Germany there was still plenty left over to squash Japan. The challenge as Japan is seeing how long you can hold out or do better. Winning outright is rare.

I don´t know if I remember this correctly but I think I read somewhere that the US had twice the worlds combined industrial output at the start of the war. If its correct it pretty amazing! [X(]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

New question:

So carriers have limited torpedoes, but it seems that if the number left is less than the size of the torpedo group, then they won't use the remainder at all.

Not exactly. If there are insufficient torpedoes left for the next strike to ALL be equipped with torpedoes, there is a chance that they will A) Have a small subunit rearm with torpedoes to completely exhaust stores and B) automatically rearm the balance of TBs left with bombs for a separate strike package.

I believe that this is determined by airgroup commander experience and a random roll.

Oh and why does an airgroup that is USING TORPEDOES always have that text in red?

It doesn't. It's in red with supply issues (if there's not enough to arm all available striking planes) or if it's set to something (e.g., port attack) that will not use a torpedo. Exception: Pearl Harbor attack on turn one.

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

Historically, it was never a fair fight. The United States alone had ten times the industrial capacity of Japan. Even accounting for the effort against Germany there was still plenty left over to squash Japan. The challenge as Japan is seeing how long you can hold out or do better. Winning outright is rare.

I don´t know if I remember this correctly but I think I read somewhere that the US had twice the worlds combined industrial output at the start of the war. If its correct it pretty amazing! [X(]

There's a pretty good summary of the economic disparity between Japan and the US on the combined fleet website.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Throw in the Brits, Chinese and Soviets and you're really deep in "what were they thinking?" territory [:D]

[Chernobyl]

Okay you know what it was, I think it might be the tendency of the Kate to prefer the 800kg bomb in a port attack mission.

I did three straight days of pearl harbor and none of my carriers had used all their torpedoes. I wish there was a way to force the use of certain ordinance. Apparently sometimes Kates use 2x250kg bombs instead of the 1x800kg which would be bad. If they're going to use bombs I want them to at least use one with a punch!

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

Okay you know what it was, I think it might be the tendency of the Kate to prefer the 800kg bomb in a port attack mission.

I did three straight days of pearl harbor and none of my carriers had used all their torpedoes. I wish there was a way to force the use of certain ordinance. Apparently sometimes Kates use 2x250kg bombs instead of the 1x800kg which would be bad. If they're going to use bombs I want them to at least use one with a punch!

I think 1st turn is a special case with port attack, otherwise TBs won't use torpedoes (or that's very very rare).

I believe (I'm not 100 % sure) but 2x250 kg vs. 800 kg bomb depends average experience of bomber pilots. If average experience of unit is above 70, they can use 800 kg bombs.

[koniu]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

Okay you know what it was, I think it might be the tendency of the Kate to prefer the 800kg bomb in a port attack mission.

I did three straight days of pearl harbor and none of my carriers had used all their torpedoes. I wish there was a way to force the use of certain ordinance. Apparently sometimes Kates use 2x250kg bombs instead of the 1x800kg which would be bad. If they're going to use bombs I want them to at least use one with a punch!

I think 1st turn is a special case with port attack, otherwise TBs won't use torpedoes (or that's very very rare).

I believe (I'm not 100 % sure) but 2x250 kg vs. 800 kg bomb depends average experience of bomber pilots. If average experience of unit is above 70, they can use 800 kg bombs.

Puhis you are right if average XP of pilots is above 70 they will use 800Kg in port attack.
And for torpedo use I read somewhere that this will depend from number of ships in port. More ships more likely that bombers will use torpedo

[Chernobyl]

So if I have 20 torpedo bombers and say 6 torpedoes left, it is possible that the group might attack with 6 torpedoes and 14 800kg bombs?

-Also, I am transferring squadrons to my carriers on Dec. 7th. Do I want to spend the PP to change these squadrons to Independent command? Or does it not matter that I will have some squadrons operating on my KB that are under the command of the 21st Air Flotilla? I'm under the impression units get a bonus if they are within proximity to their HQ. Does this apply to carrier airgroups, and if so does that mean that I want my Independent-attached groups assigned to a real HQ?

-I am failing to notice how the B5N2 Kate is an upgrade to the B5M1 Mabel. The Kate has higher endurance and lower service rating, but lower maneuver and cruise speed. What is the point of upgrading to the Kate?

-Service rating: what does it mean? I assume it increases the time to fix damaged aircraft?

-Is it possible to play the Ironman scenario as Japan or will the game crash? I assume there must be some problem with the scenario because I can't find an AAR of it.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

So if I have 20 torpedo bombers and say 6 torpedoes left, it is possible that the group might attack with 6 torpedoes and 14 800kg bombs?

Usually not, because TBs use torpedoes mainly on naval attack, and 800 kg bombs on port attack. So most probable combination would be 20 x 800 kg or 20 x 2x250 kg on port attack, and 6 torpedoes and 2x250 kg bombs on naval attack.

-Also, I am transferring squadrons to my carriers on Dec. 7th. Do I want to spend the PP to change these squadrons to Independent command? Or does it not matter that I will have some squadrons operating on my KB that are under the command of the 21st Air Flotilla? I'm under the impression units get a bonus if they are within proximity to their HQ. Does this apply to carrier airgroups, and if so does that mean that I want my Independent-attached groups assigned to a real HQ?

I think it doesn't matter, carrier airgroups operate under TF commander.

-I am failing to notice how the B5N2 Kate is an upgrade to the B5M1 Mabel. The Kate has higher endurance and lower service rating, but lower maneuver and cruise speed. What is the point of upgrading to the Kate?

I think Mabel and Kate are pretty equal planes. Historically Kate was main TB, Mabel didn't make to mass production. Personally I think endurance is more important than cruise speed.

-Service rating: what does it mean? I assume it increases the time to fix damaged aircraft?

Yes.

[Chernobyl]

Thanks for answering my questions

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: StK

3.1: The difference between Naval Attack->Port Attack and Port Attack is Naval Attack is special in that sense that your bombers will (ofc) only fly and attack something if there actually are Naval Taskforces around and get spotted by you.
So if you set your bombers to Naval Attack you will get the option of giving them a secondary order what to do when there is no enemy Task Forces spotted in their range.
(Port Attack, Airfield Attack, Ground Attack, Recon or Rest)

Something else about Airstrikes:
Try to keep them together at similar altitudes or they will arrive piecemeal at the enemy base. Torpedo bombers (when using torpedos) will always drop down to use them, as already mentioned but dive bombers you have to set to an altitude between 10-15K feet otherwise they wont dive and be a lot less effective.

sorry, I thought DB alt was 10-14000ft...

[Chernobyl]

-Does the flak rating of a ship contribute to the AA effectiveness of your fleet if that ship is not the one being attacked?

-I am running some test battles where I send in a fleet of 5BB, 2CB, 1CL, and 5DD against the enemy starting Enterprise fleet of 1CV, 3CA, and I think 6 DD. I have ran this battle four times, and only ONCE did my battleships (including Yamato and Musashi) succeed in sinking the Enterprise! What gives? They seem to target the enemy CA heavily but mostly ignore the CV. Any way to encourage them to hit the CV?