Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
ORIGINAL: obvert

Any tips on J7W uses and drawbacks? I plan to use it for spot defence interception. It's range is restrictive for much else.
Yeah. CAP. high %'s because the climb is not good. (80-100% instead of 60%). DUR is only 30. That means you have to cycle them to keep the numbers up. Its all about managing the ops losses with these beasts. That's the bad.

The good. What they hit dies. Even 4E. A2A losses will be low for you due to their speed. You'll use them at the top of your CAP stack with your Franks. I really wish the Devs had chosen the 6x20mm (same weight), but they went for the 4x30mm. Still C/L is 30% acc and x4 you will get a hit with almost every burst. And as I say, pretty much every hit is a kill. Oh, the best thing about the 30mm is the range = 6. That's 50% more than the browning 50. It means when attacking 4E, you get hit a LOT less.

I don't see the range helping as much A2A against P47's, I suspect that is because of relative speeds keeping engagement time low? Just a guess. But against 4E's, you will notice a lot lower losses. So, your J7W's are going take damage, but with you being on CAP, losses won't be as high. P47's though, almost every 30mm hit is a kill … and they have a long way to return, so it usually turns out that way. That damage has to be managed or you will start to fly with too many damaged planes that will turn into high Ops losses, I check my groups every turn when they are on CAP to control that. Good luck!!

That helps. Thanks! [&o]

I'll not have too many to start at least, due to the Ha-43 shortage mostly. I can't build more factories with a deficit running on the engines, and of course I don't know how long I'll have the factories now producing before getting them burned out.

I'll plan to fill one 36 plane group to start, then another in a month.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2796
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by jdsrae »

ok, i'm caught up and now know what this thread is all about. Good luck Mike!
I was going to post a few of my recent calcs on airframes and engines etc in the war room but will throw them up here instead. Mike, I hope you convert your modern ships to IJN use and don't waste them on hauling resources!

On airframe and engine research. I won't waste time trying to convince anyone what model of each type of plane to build, but to figure out how many airframes of each type I first figured out the peak demand of each to fill out the existing and arriving sentai/chutai. You then need to select a replacement rate. I chose 1/5th (20%) for fighters and 1/8th (12.5%) for everything else. Yet to be tested in anger.
Then once you select your models to meet the production rate you can set your factories for build and research. I also went heavy on fighter research but went a single research factory on certain types that I want to build and they come just before standard arrival, and start building at 30/month on day 1. I think GA does this and I agree as it avoids you having to spend supply again changing the factory later. There are definite diminishing returns on research factories once you get > 10ish. Each additional factory above about 12 might save you a few weeks, but not months of research time.
Your engine demand can then be calculated. Engine factories are one thing I steadily increase just-in-time to keep up with aircraft production. Surprisingly, I found that the 500+ engine pool bonus only applies to a few engine types and sometimes only for a few months. Some months it will only be partial assistance to your research factories, but it all helps.
I'll throw up the aircraft demand graphs separately and it shows that you need to at least have a plan to seriously ramp up production of aircraft and engines to be able to fill your mid and later war arrivals as the demand for some types hits like a tsunami. I've plotted out Plan A for this so I have something to adjust as the in-game situation onfolds.
I have also just done some calcs on what setting all of this up in the first month or two does to supply, and that did make me adjust a few things. My model suggests you can be aggressive and set most things up in the first few months. By doing that, supply is tight for 2-3 months so no export from Japan, hold off an anything else but building a few key Ports for resource/oil movement, but my choices show that by Mar 42 I'll be well into supply surplus at home again and all my aircraft factories will already be set up with research pumping. Same for initial research factory changes to 0(30) each.
I then modelled engine factory changes to keep pace with the aircraft demand for the entire war, and engine factories need to be steadily increased over time. Once an early engine factory isn't needed anymore it converts to a later war engine and expands steadily again to feed the demand for the modern planes.
I then modelled HI demand for all industry expansion and manufacturing for the duration and tweaked a few other things to avoid HI going into the negative. The HI pool never gets into the multi-millions. To enable my aggressive aircraft/engine program I had to give up on a bit of the naval shipyard expansion that I would have liked, but that was it. Everything links to everything else!
I'll also throw up the HI pool graph to show how it looks and interestingly the critical point was some time in late 44 when pilot training ramps up and manufacturing is high everywhere, with limited numbers of research facilities left apart from the late war models. Once naval and merchant shipyards start ramping down from late 44 the HI pools start to build again. I'll throw up a few graphs to spark some discussion, but I am planning to produce pretty high numbers of fighters through all phases to try and maintain air superiority. I don't care if I slightly over-produce early (Oscar/Zero, not Nate!) and mid-war fighters as when I finally get to test this on a human opponent I am expecting that they will have read something like an obvert vs lowpe AAR and will be aggressive allied early, so if anything I will have still undercooked my early fighter production. These graphs are for Scenario 1, generally based on the # of things needed to fill the groups by type as they arrive except for my FP expansion plan for ASW.
This graph shows the # of aircraft required on map to fill out your IJN afloat air groups (Kido Butai + FP units on ships).
To translate this into how many aircraft factories, apply your own replacement rate:



Image
Attachments
IJNafloat..rgroups.jpg
IJNafloat..rgroups.jpg (101.91 KiB) Viewed 413 times
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2796
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by jdsrae »

this graph shows the number of active aircraft required on map in land based IJN groups.
Again, to estimate aircraft production factory requirement from this apply the replacement rate you think you will need. Again, mine is 20% of this = # of fighter factories, #12.5% = number of factories for everything else.

Note the ramp up in land based IJN fighter demand from about Aug 43.
Also the Light Bomber (LB) spike is when the kamikaze / trainer squadrons arrive. You can plan for that spike so that come April 45 you have a reasonable number of Toka/Kikka already in the pools to start equipping those units. I think I chose Toka to keep the Ha-35 engine which will already have fairly large factories from earlier model aircraft demands.

Image
Attachments
IJN land b..r groups.jpg
IJN land b..r groups.jpg (155.49 KiB) Viewed 413 times
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2796
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by jdsrae »

And finally the IJAAF. I came here a few hours ago to read the discussion on NF.
Not much demand for NF, so I picked the early type to research 0(30) then build it for a while. Shut it off once the pool is what you want. Then change that factory to the later model NF that you want to build.

Note that these graphs are based on the aircraft type that arrives on map. For those units that you want to change type, you'd have to adjust.
The summary is that by Aug 45 you need to have a plan to keep nearly 5000 IJAAF aircraft in the air and half of them fighters!

Image
Attachments
IJAAFairgroups.jpg
IJAAFairgroups.jpg (118.43 KiB) Viewed 413 times
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2796
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by jdsrae »

Last graph, Heavy Industry Points production/spend forecast.

Mike, you mentioned a few weeks back that this isn't a game of fighting the allies, it's about the logistics of bringing stuff back to Japan.
You could take that a step further as the only reason you're bringing raw materials back to Japan is to make war machines out of it.

This graph is a work in progress showing my current working, and is influenced by all decisions related to building war machines.
It shows that the impact on the HI pool of aggressive early industry expansion is minimal compared to the HI spend on everything else. (Supply is the limiting factor for industry changes/expansion, but only for the first 2-3 months).

The main impact on HI point use and the reason it never gets above 1M in this graph is that I expanded aircraft factories and engines based on my replacement rate forecast, and plan to build decent numbers through all phases of the war.
If the allied player is reasonably passive, I can easily adjust the plan by switching off some factories and expand further in mid/late war, but if the allied player is aggressive I will need this sort of HI spend profile. I think it's better to plan for an aggressive allied player from day 1.
The increase in HI points required to train Japanese pilot replacements is also significant as it triples over the course of 1943.

My Admirals would all resign if I even suggested halting production of the Shinano, so going aggressive on airframe research and production (with the engines to match) means limited naval shipyard expansion and therefore limited acceleration of ship building.
I haven't planned naval and merchant shipyard production in detail yet but I can save a fair few HI points there on merchants by reducing merchant build and switching off merchant shipyards earlier than shown here.
Also, by 1945 I don't expect the HI point pool to ramp up again as the allies should be interfering with manufacturing by then.

The summary here is that I feel that by manufacturing decent numbers of the latest war machines through all phases of the war (early/mid/late) you will be better able to win battles early, compete hard through the mid-war and therefore delay or perhaps avoid complete destruction in 1945.

Image
Attachments
HIpointforecast.jpg
HIpointforecast.jpg (190.94 KiB) Viewed 413 times
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: rustysi



The whole NF thing still has me messed up. Just when I think that I may have it doped out, someone throws in another monkey-wrench.[8|]

Still not sure how to resolve the issues. Planes too slow, too few groups for what seems to be a large R&D investment if I want to get something in time. Not to mention Army/Navy. What's to be done? Time to reevaluate again????

NF are a numbers game. You need to painstakingly search thru all groups that can upgrade to the NF and convert them. If you search posts by my name I did this for both Army and Navy stock game night fighters in the war room.

There are basically three generations of NF: 1st: IrvingS, IrvingSA, Nick, Dinah; 2nd Gen: Frances, Peggyd, Zero, Judy, Myrt; 3rd: Denko and Randy.

You need Irving Sa, Nick and Dinah to convert squadrons, you need the Zero to resize some of the tiny groups. For 2nd gen and later pick one...I like Peggyd to replace Nick/Dinah and Frances. Myrt has a lot to recommend it too. Randy never really gets radar, but some swear by it. Denko has sky high SR.

There are some odd ones. Several recon groups that convert, a FB group and even a FP group that convert to NF. Make them all.

The key to NFs is using them with several hex bleed and radar. The Irving NF will travel and engage even faster planes at several hexes distance. Also, don't scrimp on pilot quality. I have 70-80exp pilots in my NF groups. I also keep layers of altitude bands covered in an area.

The Randy is good!

Here are the groups:


Image

Scenario 1 night fighters...

tm.asp?m=3895701&mpage=1&key=frances&#3896007
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Mike Solli »

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. [:D] The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D] I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Kull »

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

[&o] legend obvert, that’s saved me a few thousand clicks!

You still might have a few clicks to go for some, and I'm not sure the list is complete. I have to reference my game to see again. It's been a while since I looked at this. To complicate matters more, the groups change names in the mid-to-late war. So these are mostly the late war names. You might need tracker to sort out all of it. [;)]

You can get the answer quickly using the "Jap Airgroup Upgrades" tab in my Japan set-up spreadsheet. Just have the list of model numbers you are looking for, and then look for them using the "Upgrade" filter buttons starting in column X (and working sequentially to the left through each upgrade column). The tab includes the starting unit name, arrival dates, airframe counts, locations, and everything else that might be of interest.

Anyway this process will give you the conclusive answer, in a fraction of the time it would take to manually hunt through the editor.
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Lecivius »

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D]

AE, or play with the wife? [&:]


For me, I don't see the question here [:D]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: rustysi
Can confirm that the J7W is murder on 4Es. Have personally experienced. Also does well against late war Allied fighters, relatively speaking.

So would you recommend a red or white with that?[:D]

Why not a blush?
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. [:D] The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D] I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2796
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by jdsrae »

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now.

Another thing on my to do list is to see if it's possible to flatten Cagayan with a Bombardment task force and invade asap to try and kill his 4E bombers on the ground?
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. [:D] The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D] I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.

Not that radical at all. Helen is absolutely not worth accelerating. Peggy T doubles down as a solid kamikaze, while the Lilly DB models are outstanding. Patsy is a solid plane recon plane too, and might not earn her VP back, but will at least cause the Allies to spread their forces.

Having said all that, you can probably get by with 5 on Patsy, 3 on Peggy T, 1 on Lilly DB. Having said all that, I would rather get the Kikka & Ki115b.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. [:D] The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D] I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.

Not that radical at all. Helen is absolutely not worth accelerating. Peggy T doubles down as a solid kamikaze, while the Lilly DB models are outstanding. Patsy is a solid plane recon plane too, and might not earn her VP back, but will at least cause the Allies to spread their forces.

Having said all that, you can probably get by with 5 on Patsy, 3 on Peggy T, 1 on Lilly DB. Having said all that, I would rather get the Kikka & Ki115b.


The Patsy in the kami role should be far superior to just about anything else. The amazing range on it means you can forward deploy them and use them offensively, or have them deployed far to the rear to give depth to any defence. The Kikka at 115's are nice, but the range is the difficult part with actually deploying them. They're point defence, while the Patsy is area denial.
JoV
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:28 am

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by JoV »

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. [:D] The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D] I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

And you were surprised that I was able to fill 50 odd pages of notes from your other thread. Its already several pages longer owing to this discussion [:D]
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


The Patsy in the kami role should be far superior to just about anything else.

Doubtful.

Plus, to get the great range attacks, you have to shut down all naval search except for one narrow band and then pray. I don't see that many 20+ hex naval attacks on anything.




mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


The Patsy in the kami role should be far superior to just about anything else.

Doubtful.

Plus, to get the great range attacks, you have to shut down all naval search except for one narrow band and then pray. I don't see that many 20+ hex naval attacks on anything.





It's a Helen with some real range.

Quick and reasonably durable. Flies at 44k, well above most Allied CV craft. In general I just find the twin-engine planes to be better at lasting through CAP.

For long-range attacks, I don't think shutting down naval search as you suggest would be ideal, but that's one option. I'd max out DL and hope for a lucky intercept on a un-CAPed TF. Flying at anything from 100 ft to 44k ft you're bound to get something, and the VP return from un-CAPed merchantmen is excellent.

Infinitely better than the Kikka or 115s, where you're using them at best on D-Day-1 or even D-Day itself. The Patsy gives you the chance to get strikes in for a long way off.

My preferred option would be to keep them as a reserve to act in co-operation with conventional strikes. In a Honshu or Kyushu landing scenario, having them based from Korea, for example.
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 11125
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. [:D] The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D] I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.
Ki-74, Sorry MM, I'm not a fan.

Only 3 hex more range than G3M, G3M takes no RnD and you get it in '42. I build a ton of them to use exactly as you state.
Also use them as Patrol/Recon … 2E and 26 hex range.

I hate the IJ LB selection. There isn't one to speak of. Why did they stay with the Ki-21 the whole war? Simple, they never got anything much better. We can get the Helen, but IRL they didn't have that choice as they were just hangar queens (the twin chargers never worked on the Ha-34's). Peggy is faster, but smaller bomb load. what is up with 3x250kg? FB's have bigger bombloads for the allies. [:D][:D]


[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
Pax
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It's a Helen with some real range.

Quick and reasonably durable. Flies at 44k, well above most Allied CV craft. In general I just find the twin-engine planes to be better at lasting through CAP.

It has half the bomb load of a Sally or Helen.[&:]

Even flying sky high, it will still be intercepted by CAP over carriers, with no fighter protection they will all be shot down.

Patsy does have a camera. Patsy can force the allies to disperse their fighters and AA somewhat. But it is a fringe plane.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Mike & Mike - USS America (A) vs. Mike (J)

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Holy cow, guys! This is crazy, but really interesting. [:D] The game really hasn't started yet. Mike is working on his massive 8 Dec turn right now. He's taking a long weekend for his first wedding anniversary [;)] so I hope the slacker gets the turn back to me before he goes MIA. [:D] I really like the NF discussion. I'm using it in my other game. I've been having a hard time finding the units in that game so this helps immensely. Thanks!

I have made some decisions on my fighter program (and R&D in general). Once I get it all worked out, I'll post it. It's in my head, but I need to put it on paper. My brain is old...

I think you've had solid input from everyone else regarding R&D.

Now I'll upset the boat and suggest a radical proposition for the IJA R&D:

- Do absolutely no R&D or production of any Helen model.
- Improvise with Sally & Lily (including DB varients)
- Put maximum effort into accelerating Peggy T and Ki-74

I suggest this as the Helen is only a series of marginal improvement over the Lily/Sally.

The Peggy T is really a game-changer for the IJNAF, and the 74 gives you a lot of defence in depth. The Helen is a bit of a letdown in comparison.
Ki-74, Sorry MM, I'm not a fan.

Only 3 hex more range than G3M, G3M takes no RnD and you get it in '42. I build a ton of them to use exactly as you state.
Also use them as Patrol/Recon … 2E and 26 hex range.

I hate the IJ LB selection. There isn't one to speak of. Why did they stay with the Ki-21 the whole war? Simple, they never got anything much better. We can get the Helen, but IRL they didn't have that choice as they were just hangar queens (the twin chargers never worked on the Ha-34's). Peggy is faster, but smaller bomb load. what is up with 3x250kg? FB's have bigger bombloads for the allies. [:D][:D]


[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]


I'm not sure what version of the game data you're looking at. I'm playing stock, the Patsy is 29 (36) hexes range. The G3M3 is 21 (26).

Those extra 8 (10) hexes range matter a great deal IMO, as now there's a substantially greater number of rear-area bases that the Allies need to defend.

For reference, the range on the B-29-1 is 28 (35).

The bombload isn't amazing, but two bombs on a target you can reach is better than four bombs on a plane sitting at home because it doesn't have the range. IIRC the G3M3 carries 2x250 plus 2x60 normal bombload, so the Patsy is only losing out on the 60kg hand grenades...

The other point in favor of it is that it's an IJA aircraft. By the time you have the Patsy the pools should be awash with LowNav/GrdB IJA bomber pilots, leaving the IJN to focus absolutely on anti-shipping.
It has half the bomb load of a Sally or Helen.

Even flying sky high, it will still be intercepted by CAP over carriers, with no fighter protection they will all be shot down.

Patsy does have a camera. Patsy can force the allies to disperse their fighters and AA somewhat. But it is a fringe plane.

Half the bombload but triple the range. That's a strong argument in itself for usage.

As for interception, the Patsy can fly at 44k ft max altitude. The highest flying Allied CV fighters are the late-model Corsairs, and they can only fly to 41.6k ft.

These Corsair models are also the fastest flying carrier fighters - IOW the quickest interceptors.

Utilizing the Patsy as a tactical option at 44k feet means that these planes are going to get drawn up into the stratosphere to effect an intercept. The might do it, they might not. If they don't, then the Patsy's get to try and beat the flak. But even if they do intercept and shoot down all the Patsy, there's a bunch of the fastest Allied fighters up at 44k feet that now need to dive down to 1, 5, 10 or 15k to intercept the next strike aimed at the CVs.

Rinse and repeat that a few times and that's where the real value of the Patsy comes in.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”