Japanese Aircraft

[kstoddard2]

Gents,

I'm beginning a PBEM campaign game as the Japanese. What aircraft should the Japanese STOP building. In the old game I would halt production of the KI-30 and a few others. But things are different in this game.

Any tips?

Kyle

[dr.hal]

What rules are you playing with concerning PDU? There are tips but many of them depend upon what type of game you are engaged in. Hal

[kstoddard2]

It's just the basic, un-modded out of the box full campaign.

[wdolson]

There is a switch in the preferences for aircraft unit upgrades to be historical or Player Defined (PDU). It's available in every scenario, though it is locked down with the starting preferences with a PBEM (play by e-mail) game. Whether PDU is on or not affects Japanese aircraft industry decisions quite a bit. If PDU is off, you need to build some aircraft that weren't stellar so your air units can upgrade to them, and then on to something else. If PDU is off, you can skip building some aircraft types.

Bill

[dr.hal]

Bill is right but being modest, the PDU off and on means a LOT. Have a look at this url:

tm.asp?m=3329605&mpage=1&key=

[Jorge_Stanbury]

If you are new, you should start playing with PDU ON

As per your question, I would stop immediately the following obsolete models:
Ki-51 Sonia
Ki-36 Ida
Ki-27 Nate

And also these:
Ki-56 Thalia
F1M2 Pete
because their production line can be used for more useful models


I suggest you read Mike Solli's AAR as it has lots of insights on how to play Japan

[dr.hal]

Remember related engine production as well.... but what would you recommend if PDU is off?

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Then you will need to build almost all models, a lot more complex

Greyjoy's AAR is a good template

[Numdydar]

You can also look at the last section of this http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3329605 if you have not looked at it already.

[geofflambert]

Some depends on what engines have already been built. Use those to make trainers if nothing more useful uses those engines. I think the proper question is 'what planes should I not stop making?' The army Babs are too useful for search and recon so I'd keep that line going for at least a dozen or so a month. Keep making the Glens and the subs that can deploy them, they seem invaluable to me. The game will allow you to use other float planes for that but I think that's probably gamey. The game will also let you carry a reserve on the sub, but I'm pretty sure that's gamey too.

[geofflambert]

Another little issue is to remember that bomber crews trained on single engine aircraft will be effective on two engine bombers, so I'd keep the Idas coming. You need a lot of trainers. In my view at least 1/3 of your squadrons should be dedicated to that, but I tend to keep 1/2 or more on that. Don't forget that transports can be used for general training and the 'recruits' you have available are not ready for prime time. Also keep in mind that many single engine float planes can train in escort, and the IJN will always be desperate for well trained fighter pilots as well as the other categories of air crew.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Remember related engine production as well.... but what would you recommend if PDU is off?

Well for starters you could nix the Oscar Ia factory.[:)] I haven't gotten much further than that yet.

Often times in PDU on games it makes a lot of sense to stick with a single engine bomber for a while Mary, Ann, Sonia or Ida. Really whichever model you like. The ones that drop 250kg bombs are effective in China, and also over isolated Allied troops. They are friendly planes that fly from small runways. Japanese pilots thought well of the Sonia.[:)] Just saying.

[geofflambert]

I tend not to use those planes to bomb Chinese, it has little effect in the end. Train or do ASW. The Marys and Anns are good for that (ASW) because of their bombload. But I would hesitate to build any more.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I tend not to use those planes to bomb Chinese, it has little effect in the end. Train or do ASW. The Marys and Anns are good for that (ASW) because of their bombload. But I would hesitate to build any more.

I am not so sure. Yes, the losses are less than a Helen dropping four 250 kgs, but the supplies used are a fraction, the airbase doesn't have to be big, and the disruption caused is for the most part hidden from sight.

I believe the armored Sonia is credited with the last kamikaze kill off the war. They modded them in 45 to carry a 250gk bomb I believe.

Sonia also makes for a decent short range recon plane in China -- they have cameras. Perhaps it can be a decent 2.5 hex ASW platform too -- helping to raise dl on subs. Don't know, never tried it until now.

Of course their utility is really hampered by the short range. As Japan you want range, and then more range. I will let you know in about 3 years how a Sonia does as a kamikaze.

[geofflambert]

Thoughtful reply. But two things remain as most important to me for such a plane, training and ASW.

You can evict enemy LCUs from clear or nearly clear hexes with few casualties. But first, you have trained your opponent to stay out of those, and two, Helens and Sallys can do a better job from a higher altitude and then return to their regular business. Also, the Lily is quite good in the ASW role, but I wouldn't build any to do it, just take the ones you have.

[Encircled]

Never really used the Sonia much for recon, due to the range.

Good in China as a harassment plane and a good trainer.

Quite good for local ASW around your port hubs as well

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Quite good for local ASW around your port hubs as well

I had a suspicion they might be really good at that. There are areas where the short range isn't that much of a detriment.

[Trugrit]

I have found this Japanese primer useful when I was trying to learn how to play Japan.
I'm still learning.[8|]

tm.asp?m=2933397

Near the end of the primer there is a list of Japanese planes and recommendations.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I don't think I would ever spend in building trainers; unless I am role playing. The cost of a single engine Ki-36 Ida is the same as the cost of the most advanced single engine plane Japan have (think Ki-84 for example). In real life it makes sense to build docile, less costly planes for training, but that is not modeled in game.

Thus any second rate or recently obsolescent plane can be a good trainer. The game also doesn't model the fact that training was attritionally heavy. I think the US lost more carrier capable planes in Lake Michigan that it did in the entire Pacific. In game you can have the same trainers running for the entire war with barely any loss.

Playing Japan I would use all Army 1E bombers available, but won't build any more, eventually they will be all replaced by 2Es

[Lowpe]

Here is a thought. One size 30 Sonia factory will make 360 planes per year. 1942 = 360; 1943 = 720; 1944 = 1080. That is 1000 planes for kamikazes in 1945. Yes they are junk, but as a point defence against invasions I bet they work, at the very least they will help tire the CAP out. In a PDU off environment they might excel!

In 1945 you need to be able to lose 2000 to 3000 planes and then be prepared to do it again 2 weeks later, and again 2 weeks after that. Downfall against mind-messing has taught me the value of quantity for Japan (if the pilots are there).

My humble opinion. Of course, Jorge, your logic is very sound.