MUST HAVE Japanese planes

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And from a purely AFB POV, not really knowing the production trade-offs, I don't fear the Jack a bit. But I really hate the George. They are not even close to even planes in combat, especially versus P-47s.

Have you faced the J2M5 yet? That one is a different beast. Depends a lot on your opponents uses, settings, your HRs (or lack of them) and of course pilots. If your opponent considers the George better too, he'll put better pilots into it, ensuring it's indeed better. [:)]

The Jack is good, but mainly as an interceptor where the George can be a sweeper as well. The versions of the Jack and George can behave very differently. The N1K1 is in my view a better interceptor than the N1K2, but for the Jack I'd say the reverse. The initial J2M2 is not as good (except climb) and each generation improves significantly.

I haven't used the N1K5 which I think should be the best of the bunch, and look forward to that this game.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I still use the G3M3 Nell for its range, but otherwise I say you should get out of the G4M and into the Frances as much as possible. If you can't see the Allies coming from 11-12 hexes out, then it doesn't matter anyway. And strikes from 20ish hexes out can be done by Nells just as well as they can be done by G4Ms. No point producing both. The G3M is primarily a search plane later on, while the Frances is primarily strike.

And I'm going to say it for the umpteenth time: Oscar sucks. Why would you choose to produce an inferior plane? Compare the Ki-43-IV Oscar to the Ki-100-I Tony (you can get to either at about the same time):

I guess the Tony uses the popular Ha-33 instead of the Ha-35, but engine is a nonfactor for me unless it's a unique engine (like Ha-60 or Ha-5). Sure, the Oscar is more maneuverable and climbs a bit faster, but dies so much easier. I guess you can escort farther with it, but I don't feel the need to strike more than 10 hexes away. That's just a recipe for feeding the Allied pilots much-needed kills for experience.

Speed: 364 / 360
Max Range: 33 / 26
Normal Range: 6(10) / 5(8)
Extended: 8(13) / 7(10)
Max alt: 36810 / 36090
Climb: 3140 / 2730
Maneuver: 33 / 21
Durability: 23 / 30
Armor: 1 / 1
Guns: 2x CL 20mm Ho-5 / ditto PLUS 2x F 12.7mm MG
Bombs: 2x250kg on each
Factories already producing

HaHa! [:D]

I know how you feel about the Oscar. There are just some thing it does that other planes don't do as well. It's a great low CAP plane, but if you don't use low CAP the way I do you might not notice that. I didn't until this game when Lowpe showed me the ways. The manoeuvre makes a difference there.

It is a great escort. The extra few hexes DO matter sometimes, and especially when you don't have drop tanks available. When the Grace comes online it's especially useful.

Going through the list comparison I am actually surprised at how many things the Oscar does better than the Ki-100. Climb is a big advantage too, and maybe that is the factor I see in CAP duties, getting th numbers in action to make a difference, and using manoeuvre to dodge hits and keep the battle going longer so other planes make it into the fight.

Also, in terms of efficiency, I do have the engine surplus and I do have the factories sitting there already functioning from the beginning. So if I choose to keep producing the same amount I end up with a plan that is very serviceable and flexible through many tasks, just not as good as others at any (except escort). So that on it's own is useful. And in the end I then have a good kami with great range.

The Oscar is also useable throughout the line (service 1, 2 x 250kg and armor on the IIb), where the service 3-4 Tonys up to the Ki-100 are not so useful in many locations. I don't even make them (choosing to use the Oscar instead) which also can get me to the Ki-110 more efficiently.

Your bolding belies the fact that the stats are largely comparable, except that the Oscar has a few more hexes of range, more maneuver, but less durability and less hitting power. The speed, climb, and ceiling are close enough as to be irrelevant points of comparison. The Tony is a much better all-around plane simply because of the durability and extra guns, however. That Maneuver doesn't really get you anything.

I guess I'm never in a situation where drop tanks aren't available for me [;)]. But plans are made to be broken, I suppose, so it could happen. If you actually produce the Ki-61's, I don't know what to say. Except just don't.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And from a purely AFB POV, not really knowing the production trade-offs, I don't fear the Jack a bit. But I really hate the George. They are not even close to even planes in combat, especially versus P-47s.

Have you faced the J2M5 yet? That one is a different beast. Depends a lot on your opponents uses, settings, your HRs (or lack of them) and of course pilots. If your opponent considers the George better too, he'll put better pilots into it, ensuring it's indeed better. [:)]

The Jack is good, but mainly as an interceptor where the George can be a sweeper as well. The versions of the Jack and George can behave very differently. The N1K1 is in my view a better interceptor than the N1K2, but for the Jack I'd say the reverse. The initial J2M2 is not as good (except climb) and each generation improves significantly.

I haven't used the N1K5 which I think should be the best of the bunch, and look forward to that this game.

I think the reverse. The N1K1 is not really a great interceptor, and the N1K2 is better for bomber defense CAP (despite worse armament). But the Jack is the better interceptor for enemy bombers as well as fighters, no matter the model except perhaps for the N1K5. I've decided to move on from the N1K1, despite its altitude and greater range, as the N1K5 is just slightly better overall.

The J2M2 is very underwhelming, though. The J2M3 and J2M5 are good.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And from a purely AFB POV, not really knowing the production trade-offs, I don't fear the Jack a bit. But I really hate the George. They are not even close to even planes in combat, especially versus P-47s.

Have you faced the J2M5 yet? That one is a different beast. Depends a lot on your opponents uses, settings, your HRs (or lack of them) and of course pilots. If your opponent considers the George better too, he'll put better pilots into it, ensuring it's indeed better. [:)]

The Jack is good, but mainly as an interceptor where the George can be a sweeper as well. The versions of the Jack and George can behave very differently. The N1K1 is in my view a better interceptor than the N1K2, but for the Jack I'd say the reverse. The initial J2M2 is not as good (except climb) and each generation improves significantly.

I haven't used the N1K5 which I think should be the best of the bunch, and look forward to that this game.

I think the reverse. The N1K1 is not really a great interceptor, and the N1K2 is better for bomber defense CAP (despite worse armament). But the Jack is the better interceptor for enemy bombers as well as fighters, no matter the model except perhaps for the N1K5. I've decided to move on from the N1K1, despite its altitude and greater range, as the N1K5 is just slightly better overall.

The J2M2 is very underwhelming, though. The J2M3 and J2M5 are good.

Some of us AFBs don't do the alphabet soup very well. I like the little names. They're cute. [:)]

You know your loss numbers, and especially the pilot data I can't see. My overall impression in Burma has been the Jacks are subject to getting a P-47 behind them more, and are not very robust. The Georges don't seem to be in the initial defense response as much, but are very good at re-attack after the bounce bonus by the P-47s removes that advantage for the Allies.

The Frank seems very good too, but maybe not quite as good as the George. Better than the Jack though.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: obvert




Have you faced the J2M5 yet? That one is a different beast. Depends a lot on your opponents uses, settings, your HRs (or lack of them) and of course pilots. If your opponent considers the George better too, he'll put better pilots into it, ensuring it's indeed better. [:)]

The Jack is good, but mainly as an interceptor where the George can be a sweeper as well. The versions of the Jack and George can behave very differently. The N1K1 is in my view a better interceptor than the N1K2, but for the Jack I'd say the reverse. The initial J2M2 is not as good (except climb) and each generation improves significantly.

I haven't used the N1K5 which I think should be the best of the bunch, and look forward to that this game.

I think the reverse. The N1K1 is not really a great interceptor, and the N1K2 is better for bomber defense CAP (despite worse armament). But the Jack is the better interceptor for enemy bombers as well as fighters, no matter the model except perhaps for the N1K5. I've decided to move on from the N1K1, despite its altitude and greater range, as the N1K5 is just slightly better overall.

The J2M2 is very underwhelming, though. The J2M3 and J2M5 are good.

Some of us AFBs don't do the alphabet soup very well. I like the little names. They're cute. [:)]

You know your loss numbers, and especially the pilot data I can't see. My overall impression in Burma has been the Jacks are subject to getting a P-47 behind them more, and are not very robust. The Georges don't seem to be in the initial defense response as much, but are very good at re-attack after the bounce bonus by the P-47s removes that advantage for the Allies.

The Frank seems very good too, but maybe not quite as good as the George. Better than the Jack though.

Haha! [:D]

Yeah, the codes of a JFB.

Good comment on the Georges coming in late. It's most likely where they're set, so if the P-47s dive on the low riffraff, the Georges follow them down and hit em after they flatten out.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

And from a purely AFB POV, not really knowing the production trade-offs, I don't fear the Jack a bit. But I really hate the George. They are not even close to even planes in combat, especially versus P-47s.

Have you faced the J2M5 yet? That one is a different beast. Depends a lot on your opponents uses, settings, your HRs (or lack of them) and of course pilots. If your opponent considers the George better too, he'll put better pilots into it, ensuring it's indeed better. [:)]

The Jack is good, but mainly as an interceptor where the George can be a sweeper as well. The versions of the Jack and George can behave very differently. The N1K1 is in my view a better interceptor than the N1K2, but for the Jack I'd say the reverse. The initial J2M2 is not as good (except climb) and each generation improves significantly.

I haven't used the N1K5 which I think should be the best of the bunch, and look forward to that this game.

I think the reverse. The N1K1 is not really a great interceptor, and the N1K2 is better for bomber defense CAP (despite worse armament). But the Jack is the better interceptor for enemy bombers as well as fighters, no matter the model except perhaps for the N1K5. I've decided to move on from the N1K1, despite its altitude and greater range, as the N1K5 is just slightly better overall.

The J2M2 is very underwhelming, though. The J2M3 and J2M5 are good.

For the N1K1 the service 3 is a killer, but n the air those extra CL MGs just seem to add a bit, even if they're little tiny.

I have a while to wait for the K5. Looking froward to that one!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Good comment on the Georges coming in late. It's most likely where they're set, so if the P-47s dive on the low riffraff, the Georges follow them down and hit em after they flatten out.

That's the problem with any of these "versus" debates. Too many variables. Pilot quality the biggest. Jacks with 80 average pilots are better than Georges with 40s.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

Good comment on the Georges coming in late. It's most likely where they're set, so if the P-47s dive on the low riffraff, the Georges follow them down and hit em after they flatten out.

That's the problem with any of these "versus" debates. Too many variables. Pilot quality the biggest. Jacks with 80 average pilots are better than Georges with 40s.

Yep. Maybe some of my dealing with the fragility of the Oscar is that I only put pilots in them with 70 air and 70 defence which should use the manoeuvre to good effect. .

[SheperdN7]

I just like the Jack's speed factor, not often when a Japanese plane is faster than most allied airframes.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

I just like the Jack's speed factor, not often when a Japanese plane is faster than most allied airframes.

You must be playing DBB with Symon's air mods!! [:D]

The Jack is not fast in stock. J2M5 tops out at 382.

[rustysi]

L2D2 for Transport when it becomes available, until then you'll do with Ki-57 Topsy's.

I'd just like to point one thing out. The L2D2 (Tabby for the Moose[:D]) is a navy A/C and the Topsy is army. AFAIK the two shall never meet and are not interchangeable. Even with PDU on it shouldn't matter. So based on that you'll need both. As for me though I only produce the Topsy's that I absolutely need and switch to the Helen based transport when it becomes available. No research here, just 'natural' development.

If i'm wrong would someone advise. Thanks.

The rest of the debate can go on 'ad nauseam' as I've stated my preferences above. I even think I stated the transport statement as well. At any rate the A/C production for a JFB is a personal preference and should be chosen to support his/her style of play.

Disclaimer: The above is JMHO.[:D]

[PaxMondo]

IJA Transport? Thalia. Best range and all the army ones move essentially the same amount of supply per trip .. so range is all that matters. Uses Ha-35 .. have tons of those. Topsy uses Ha-5 or Ha-31 ... neither of which I keep in production after 12/7/42.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

IJA Transport? Thalia. Best range and all the army ones move essentially the same amount of supply per trip .. so range is all that matters. Uses Ha-35 .. have tons of those. Topsy uses Ha-5 or Ha-31 ... neither of which I keep in production after 12/7/42.

Agreed to a point, but I have such a 'shortage' of Ha-35's at the start I don't produce the Thalia. Too busy trying to get to the magic 500 to advance my other models. I can live without the extra hex of range, but that's just me. Plus there are enough Ha-5's and Ha-31's to produce all the Topsy's I need at the start, and I don't produce either of those engines from day one.

YMMV

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

IJA Transport? Thalia. Best range and all the army ones move essentially the same amount of supply per trip .. so range is all that matters. Uses Ha-35 .. have tons of those. Topsy uses Ha-5 or Ha-31 ... neither of which I keep in production after 12/7/42.

So... you don't build any Jakes (Ha-31)?

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
So... you don't build any Jakes (Ha-31)?

Jakes use Ha-33, you must be thinking about Nicks. Them are useful early in the war, but can be replaced by 2nd gen army fighters or rushing Ki-100

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
So... you don't build any Jakes (Ha-31)?

Jakes use Ha-33, you must be thinking about Nicks. Them are useful early in the war, but can be replaced by 2nd gen army fighters or rushing Ki-100

I don't know about replacing the Nicks with the Ki-100. If I remember later when I load up my game, I'll check, but I thought that some FB squadrons were stuck with FB models as their most useful.

I still find the Nick-a and Nick-c useful in 1945, although they're second rate. Don't forget about the Nick-d, which is your earliest and best IJAAF NF for a good long time.


I am also definitely using Topsy. I actually find that it uses the Ha-31 to be an advantage - it isn't eating up engines I'd rather have used on combat planes, so I don't need to monitor the pools as much.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
So... you don't build any Jakes (Ha-31)?

Jakes use Ha-33, you must be thinking about Nicks. Them are useful early in the war, but can be replaced by 2nd gen army fighters or rushing Ki-100

I don't know about replacing the Nicks with the Ki-100. If I remember later when I load up my game, I'll check, but I thought that some FB squadrons were stuck with FB models as their most useful.

I still find the Nick-a and Nick-c useful in 1945, although they're second rate. Don't forget about the Nick-d, which is your earliest and best IJAAF NF for a good long time.

I am also definitely using Topsy. I actually find that it uses the Ha-31 to be an advantage - it isn't eating up engines I'd rather have used on combat planes, so I don't need to monitor the pools as much.

Just checked the game, and in Stock 1 it is only Nick-c and night fighter that are using Ha-31, others using Ha-35 (which you would have lots at endgame). And it looks like b is marginally better than c, precisely because of the engine downgrade I guess. So it leaves only NF as a viable consumer for Ha-31. Not sure if this one is the best NF, don't have the first-hand experience. But seems like Japan hardly needs lots of NFs - they rarely dogfight.
WRT Topsy, what's the difference of producing Ha-34 vs Ha-31 if you still produce the engine and spend HI points? I'd say engine uniformity would be an advantage. And Helen transport is definitely better

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
So... you don't build any Jakes (Ha-31)?

Jakes use Ha-33, you must be thinking about Nicks. Them are useful early in the war, but can be replaced by 2nd gen army fighters or rushing Ki-100

I cannot speak for DBB, but in Scenario 1 rushing the Ki-100-I is probably a mistake. I have attached a snippet from a spreadsheet I put together to predict *average* outcomes from different research approaches. Your Ki-100's will be in use for only a couple months if you also accelerate the Ki-84 to the same level - and the Ki-84 is a markedly better aircraft (see red boxes in picture) with only one minor drawback (CL cannons are more accurate and do more damage than wing mounted forward facing (FF)). Also note that the results with the Ki100 are as a result of skipping research on intermediate aircraft models in the Ki-61 line. Some players feel this practice by the JFB is gamey - I don't, but...

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
I cannot speak for DBB, but in Scenario 1 rushing the Ki-100-I is probably a mistake. I have attached a snippet from a spreadsheet I put together to predict *average* outcomes from different research approaches. Your Ki-100's will be in use for only a couple months if you also accelerate the Ki-84 to the same level - and the Ki-84 is a markedly better aircraft (see red boxes in picture) with only one minor drawback (CL cannons are more accurate and do more damage than wing mounted forward facing (FF)). Also note that the results with the Ki100 are as a result of skipping research on intermediate aircraft models in the Ki-61 line. Some players feel this practice by the JFB is gamey - I don't, but...

Yeah, also SR 1 vs 3... And don't underestimate the CL cannons against bombers. Ki-100 shreds
I recall Lokasenna is ok with skipping along R&D chain, we were discussing things in that framework. If you skip, you can get Ki-100 in first half of 1943 with like 4 30x factories. Good luck with accelerating Frank same way.

Point was, Ha-31 is not that essential engine, one can do with or one can do without, no crucial difference, more like personal choice

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Jakes use Ha-33, you must be thinking about Nicks. Them are useful early in the war, but can be replaced by 2nd gen army fighters or rushing Ki-100

I don't know about replacing the Nicks with the Ki-100. If I remember later when I load up my game, I'll check, but I thought that some FB squadrons were stuck with FB models as their most useful.

I still find the Nick-a and Nick-c useful in 1945, although they're second rate. Don't forget about the Nick-d, which is your earliest and best IJAAF NF for a good long time.

I am also definitely using Topsy. I actually find that it uses the Ha-31 to be an advantage - it isn't eating up engines I'd rather have used on combat planes, so I don't need to monitor the pools as much.

Just checked the game, and in Stock 1 it is only Nick-c and night fighter that are using Ha-31, others using Ha-35 (which you would have lots at endgame). And it looks like b is marginally better than c, precisely because of the engine downgrade I guess. So it leaves only NF as a viable consumer for Ha-31. Not sure if this one is the best NF, don't have the first-hand experience. But seems like Japan hardly needs lots of NFs - they rarely dogfight.
WRT Topsy, what's the difference of producing Ha-34 vs Ha-31 if you still produce the engine and spend HI points? I'd say engine uniformity would be an advantage. And Helen transport is definitely better

Except for the range... I use Helen and Topsy for IJAAF because there aren't enough Emily-L units to go around .

The Ha-31 is also used by the Army Babs and Dinah-II, which you will be using for some time after the beginning. I'm producing 120 Ha-31 per month and used the engine bonus for the Nick-d.

Which, the Nick-d... it is an important night fighter. It's the easiest one for you to get for the IJAAF. The others are much later - too late to make any difference. And yes, the NF type does seem to make some difference in the effectiveness of night CAP.