Matrix Games Forums

mind_messing,
Because before psychiatry entered my life in my late 20s I had the opportunity to take a different path due to an uncommon mix of skills for the time. I worked with various companies whose software ended up being used by several western militaries for training/mission planning. So, I got recommended to various militaries when they contacted those companies and had the opportunity to mix with individuals from various military academies and conventional forces (Sandhurst, Fort Benning, the doctrine office of the Pentagon and a few other places in other countries) as well operators in Tier 2 units but some who were clearly Tier 1 but it would have ruined relationships as well as simply being foolish to ask overtly). There was no plan to it and things developed very organically. When someone in one military or unit or school was seen to be using a software for training or mission planning it would become known at various tiers within that military and to other militaries they sometimes trained with. Next thing you know someone from another unit or country would contact the company and one could be recommended as being someone who could add value to those discussions. It became a positive feedback loop. In US military terms conventional leads to Tier 2, Tier 2 to 1 and then TLAs. It all happened very organically... and haphazardly, you have to remember this was 20 to 25 years ago. I'm certain things are much more structured now.

I came away from all of that with a lively appreciation of the keen intellects in many of those areas. The Tier 2 guys were very impressive with NCOs there impressing as much as relatively senior officers in conventional forces but the ones I suspect were Tier 1 were another level. No time for bullshit, no time for false niceties, a ruthless focus on murder boarding any proposal, coming up with the best solution irrespective of hierarchical etc concerns and accomplishing the objective as efficiently as possible. Very, very impressive people with varied interests. I met an 18E who loved to debate psyops (the 18Es don't just twiddle dials on a radio [:)]), Soviet doctrine and napoleonics. Like I said, very impressive people with a wide range of skills and interests... and interesting stories which may have happened to "some other guy in some indeterminate place"... possibly.


paxmondo, Hartwig, ny59giants
Hi there [:)]


Canoerebel,
I have no plans either way, except that I don't want hassle and am willing to discuss whatever if it seems interesting.


On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for a late-war AAR which is interesting to read? I carved out some time on an ongoing basis and I'm particularly interested in something from the Japanese side as that's by far the most challenging side to play late-war.

Also from my quick skim of the forums it seems that some changes have been made to kamikazes which has made them more impactful. Is this correct?

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for a late-war AAR which is interesting to read? I carved out some time on an ongoing basis and I'm particularly interested in something from the Japanese side as that's by far the most challenging side to play late-war.

Canoerebel and Obvert are both doing AARs for a game they've got going against each other that's currently in early 1945 (CR picked up the game from SqzMyLemon, who picked it up from Historiker) with CR from the Allied side and Obvert from the Japanese side. Obvert's AAR would be good for a late-game Japan aar

It's not late game, but a current match between Lowpe and Obvert accidentally resulted in Soviet activation in 1942, and it's been pretty interesting watching Lowpe as he fights to hold back the bear. Obvert's also doing an aar from his side as well.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

mind_messing,
Because before psychiatry entered my life in my late 20s I had the opportunity to take a different path due to an uncommon mix of skills for the time. I worked with various companies whose software ended up being used by several western militaries for training/mission planning. So, I got recommended to various militaries when they contacted those companies and had the opportunity to mix with individuals from various military academies and conventional forces (Sandhurst, Fort Benning, the doctrine office of the Pentagon and a few other places in other countries) as well operators in Tier 2 units but some who were clearly Tier 1 but it would have ruined relationships as well as simply being foolish to ask overtly). There was no plan to it and things developed very organically. When someone in one military or unit or school was seen to be using a software for training or mission planning it would become known at various tiers within that military and to other militaries they sometimes trained with. Next thing you know someone from another unit or country would contact the company and one could be recommended as being someone who could add value to those discussions. It became a positive feedback loop. In US military terms conventional leads to Tier 2, Tier 2 to 1 and then TLAs. It all happened very organically... and haphazardly, you have to remember this was 20 to 25 years ago. I'm certain things are much more structured now.

I came away from all of that with a lively appreciation of the keen intellects in many of those areas. The Tier 2 guys were very impressive with NCOs there impressing as much as relatively senior officers in conventional forces but the ones I suspect were Tier 1 were another level. No time for bullshit, no time for false niceties, a ruthless focus on murder boarding any proposal, coming up with the best solution irrespective of hierarchical etc concerns and accomplishing the objective as efficiently as possible. Very, very impressive people with varied interests. I met an 18E who loved to debate psyops (the 18Es don't just twiddle dials on a radio [:)]), Soviet doctrine and napoleonics. Like I said, very impressive people with a wide range of skills and interests... and interesting stories which may have happened to "some other guy in some indeterminate place"... possibly.

Thanks for the response!

On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for a late-war AAR which is interesting to read? I carved out some time on an ongoing basis and I'm particularly interested in something from the Japanese side as that's by far the most challenging side to play late-war.

Also from my quick skim of the forums it seems that some changes have been made to kamikazes which has made them more impactful. Is this correct?

I'm currently in Sept '45 of my first game with Loka, though it's far from the best or regularly updated AAR, though it is still ongoing. Happy to share replays and such.

Obvert and (I think?) Lowpe have AAR'd games in to '45.

Kami's are definitely much more impactful than they were previously. I was by chance reading one of your old AARs and the issue you'd had with the unvarying height of kami attacks is now fixed. They're pretty close to historical now, in that attacks with sufficient mass can and do break through Allied super-CAP.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for a late-war AAR which is interesting to read? I carved out some time on an ongoing basis and I'm particularly interested in something from the Japanese side as that's by far the most challenging side to play late-war.

I would recommend Lowpe's Turnaround tm.asp?m=3549450 in its later part for the tenacity and resourcefulness at the brink of the inevitable. He also got an award from Matrix for quality AARs (on aggregate I guess, not particularly that one)

Or he could write it all in a book which you could buy on kindle, I would be tempted to read that.

Hmm, I read Lowpe's in its entirety. Interesting but he really seemed curiously sensitive to kamikaze losses in the late-game - sending out 30 kamis at a time instead of marshaling for a 300+ plane strike. Then again, he eventually seems to have run out of planes so maybe larger strikes really weren't an option for him. His opponent also didn't maintain his strategic focus in the late-game although, to be fair, he clearly improved a lot in terms of his play from the beginning to the end. I would be willing to bet his opponent didn't have any experience with a late-war Japanese economy. Experience from the Japanese side ( or prolonged study of their economy in end-war scenarios ) shows the pressure points which will bring about rapid collapse --- which one you pick depends on how you choose to bring about the victory.

I'm reading Obverts which is very interesting... but it seems kamikazes haven't been activated. I'll go there and ask about it.

mind_messing,
Aye, I'm reading it now... I'll post a comment there since I don't want to breach FOW. What I will say is that it is good to see the Ki-94 II being used. Reading Lowpe's AAR I couldn't understand the focus on the Ki-202 instead of the Ki-94 II. The Ki-94 II is a star and, crucially, in-game costs the same as the Ki-202 with its tiny durability. It and the Patsy are under-appreciated stars of late-war Japan both in the air and as kamis.

mind_messing, Aye, I'm reading it now... I'll post a comment there since I don't want to breach FOW. What I will say is that it is good to see the Ki-94 II being used. Reading Lowpe's AAR I couldn't understand the focus on the Ki-202 instead of the Ki-94 II. The Ki-94 II is a star and, crucially, in-game costs the same as the Ki-202 with its tiny durability. It and the Patsy are under-appreciated stars of late-war Japan both in the air and as kamis.

The Ki-94 is a nifty machine, it just comes to late. The IJAAF roster just sucks this plane up and demands more, due to the fact that it's a pretty decent multi-purpose fighter: ultra-high CAP, anti-bomber CAP, ultra-high sweep. Throw kami duties into the mix and I think it's a tall order to meet the demand for it.

Of course, that's just an issue with production, but I've always been wary of the very late-war planes - sure, they're great, but factories can be bombed. Airplane pools can't.

The Patsy is another of the "day late, dollar short" airframes. That 39k altitude ceiling is amazing for flying over Allied CAP in a kami profile, as is the 29/36 range, but even bringing it forward from 10/45 still means it's going into production when there's the strong likelihood of strategic bombing shorting out the production line.

Don't get me wrong, I see real tactical value in this airframe for long distance raids on rear area Allied bases as an ertaz 4E bomber, but by the time you get it online, is it possible to build enough?

Per his request, a quick note to Nemo to advise him that I responded to his post in my thread on China.

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

Per his request, a quick note to Nemo to advise him that I responded to his post in my thread on China.

Nemo,

Here's a link to another thread I posted a while back about my carrier losses. It has a strategic map included. About the only change from then to now is that he counterattacked and retook Ramree Island and Lunga.

tm.asp?m=4523888

Hi Dave,

Sorry I should have been clearer. I was only asking people to post here if they wanted me attention to something as I amn't checking the forums in detail and so could miss a request otherwise.


mind_messing,
Ki-94... Well, it costs the same to make as an Oscar II ( once online ) so with appropriate planning of supply usage, research and production and mating those appropriately with strategic needs I believe enough can be made to be useful. You've got to bear in mind that in a game beginning 7th December 1941 I would always have my research and production plans for 1945 planned from Day 1 and decide my strategy and operations on the basis of that.

I could be wrong as I've been away quite a while but I've never seen an AARed game feature proper planning research planning to focus research and production from 7th December 1941 to accelerate late-war planes combined with operational pauses to get the IJAF and IJNAF over the difficult months where a generation of planes is being skipped. In some games I've withdrawn the Japanese airforce from the front lines for months at a time in order to get through a period of decreased airplane production as I'm skipping a generation of planes via research. Do that twice during the war and plan your research and production from Day 1 with efficiency of supply and HI utilisation in mind and you can get very useful planes in early-1944 and paradigm-shifting planes in early 45 ( assuming PDU on etc obviously ). I believe that with proper planning the increased supply usage in the present is amortised by the decreased cost in supplies over time in the future due to decreased losses. Especially as an increased plane performance improves pilot survival rates, increases enemy losses and generally decreases losses in the future with consequent supply savings.

So, in the short term it looks ruinously expensive, over the course of a 5 year war when you factor in decreased Japanese aerial losses, increased Allied aerial losses and a slowing in the rate of Allied advance I think it isn't that expensive at all. This sort of interesting what if is one of the reasons to play the game. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. From my experience in game meeting mid-1943 Allied fighters with mid-1944 Japanese fighters is worth the cost and can delay the Allies long enough to bring the 1945 generation of planes into action. Obviously though, for Japan you've got to take into account SR ratings and so there is still a place for slightly inferior planes with SR1 or 2 to thicken low level CAP and which can be produced from an early stage allowing you to build a huge pool over time through lengthy periods of low to moderate level production.


Patsy,
If you can hold the Allies back from strategic bombing range into mid-44 and bring this plane into action at that point in time then, prior to kamikaze activation, you have a bomber which can bomb Allied forming up bases and, after kamikaze activation, you've got a plane which can attrit the Allied navy at a favourable ratio for Japan and slow the pace of their advances by providing a meaningful threat to naval TFs in areas which would have previously been safe. Whenever I've gotten them I tend to commit all of my Patsy to Kamikaze duties. With a 15% hit rate (less vs warships, more vs merchants) I can expect to have 45 hits on Allied naval ships from a production of 300 Patsy per month. From an autovictory point of view I expect that Patsys will cause better than a 1:1 exchange ratio, which is far more than the 2:1 I need to make it worth my while and more effective than building 600 D5Ys which will complicate Allied SLOC security requirements less and secure fewer than 45 hits per month, on average.

Obviously strategic bombing impacts on this but, really, once that enters the fray Japan has already fallen off the cliff edge and it is just a matter of how quickly and messily you hit the rocks below.

Bottom line though, you can't get them early enough to matter without planning from it from Day 1 and making massive sacrifices to get them. Those sacrifices necessitate strategic compromises which I've never seen implemented cohesively in an AAR but which I've found to be worth the cost. YMMV of course and that's one of the nice things about the game. There are MANY different approaches and many of these approaches are valid. It all depends on how well the approach you take fits into your grand strategic objective and how it is suited vs the particular opponent you play. Aim to get the super-planes into action in mid-44 but collapse in late-43 and you'll never get to see them in action [:)]. That tends to be the most common scenario played out in AARs from what I can see.

Ki-94... Well, it costs the same to make as an Oscar II ( once online ) so with appropriate planning of supply usage, research and production and mating those appropriately with strategic needs I believe enough can be made to be useful. You've got to bear in mind that in a game beginning 7th December 1941 I would always have my research and production plans for 1945 planned from Day 1 and decide my strategy and operations on the basis of that.

True, but starting on Dec 7th doesn't give you any inherent advantage in pushing the deployment date of the airframe forward. Sure, you may see some progress on repairs to the R&D factories down to random chance as the war progresses, but in my experience it's rare that you'll get a R&D factory repaired to the optimum size 30 any earlier than a year before the arrival date. My understanding of the engine bonus is that it's dependant on R&D factories producing points (IOW repaired).

It's different of course if you capitalize on the upgrade chain to bring late war airframes forward but that doesn't apply here.

Of course, you could use R&D factory sizes smaller than 30, but then you're just introducing more random rolls.

I could be wrong as I've been away quite a while but I've never seen an AARed game feature proper planning research planning to focus research and production from 7th December 1941 to accelerate late-war planes combined with operational pauses to get the IJAF and IJNAF over the difficult months where a generation of planes is being skipped. In some games I've withdrawn the Japanese airforce from the front lines for months at a time in order to get through a period of decreased airplane production as I'm skipping a generation of planes via research. Do that twice during the war and plan your research and production from Day 1 with efficiency of supply and HI utilisation in mind and you can get very useful planes in early-1944 and paradigm-shifting planes in early 45 ( assuming PDU on etc obviously ). I believe that with proper planning the increased supply usage in the present is amortised by the decreased cost in supplies over time in the future due to decreased losses. Especially as an increased plane performance improves pilot survival rates, increases enemy losses and generally decreases losses in the future with consequent supply savings.

Yeah, going all in on late-war aircraft isn't something I recall seeing done either.

Withdrawing the Japanese air force is one solution to the mid-war airplane shift, but it's contingent upon having an opponent that won't capitalize on it or isn't in a position to do so. Considering that 1943 can often be the critical year in regards to determining the eventual outcome of a game, that's certainly a high-risk move to do it once, let alone twice. On top of that there's the fact that it gifts the tactical and strategic benifits of air superiority while the air force is grounded waiting for the wonderweapons, as well as the absolute gift of enabling the Allied player to build up squadron EXP with little to no opposition - I'm not sure if having the generational advantage in airframes is worth losing the pilot experience advantage...

Then again, it's not stupid if it works, and I do see the value in it.

So, in the short term it looks ruinously expensive, over the course of a 5 year war when you factor in decreased Japanese aerial losses, increased Allied aerial losses and a slowing in the rate of Allied advance I think it isn't that expensive at all. This sort of interesting what if is one of the reasons to play the game. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. From my experience in game meeting mid-1943 Allied fighters with mid-1944 Japanese fighters is worth the cost and can delay the Allies long enough to bring the 1945 generation of planes into action. Obviously though, for Japan you've got to take into account SR ratings and so there is still a place for slightly inferior planes with SR1 or 2 to thicken low level CAP and which can be produced from an early stage allowing you to build a huge pool over time through lengthy periods of low to moderate level production.

I'm with you on the principle that the late-war airframes are by far the best investment. Thankfully the game meta has moved away from the massive production lines of Tojo fighters that went obsolete halfway through the game to something a bit more sensible.

Patsy,
If you can hold the Allies back from strategic bombing range into mid-44 and bring this plane into action at that point in time then, prior to kamikaze activation, you have a bomber which can bomb Allied forming up bases and, after kamikaze activation, you've got a plane which can attrit the Allied navy at a favourable ratio for Japan and slow the pace of their advances by providing a meaningful threat to naval TFs in areas which would have previously been safe. Whenever I've gotten them I tend to commit all of my Patsy to Kamikaze duties. With a 15% hit rate (less vs warships, more vs merchants) I can expect to have 45 hits on Allied naval ships from a production of 300 Patsy per month. From an autovictory point of view I expect that Patsys will cause better than a 1:1 exchange ratio, which is far more than the 2:1 I need to make it worth my while and more effective than building 600 D5Ys which will complicate Allied SLOC security requirements less and secure fewer than 45 hits per month, on average.

Obviously strategic bombing impacts on this but, really, once that enters the fray Japan has already fallen off the cliff edge and it is just a matter of how quickly and messily you hit the rocks below.

Bottom line though, you can't get them early enough to matter without planning from it from Day 1 and making massive sacrifices to get them. Those sacrifices necessitate strategic compromises which I've never seen implemented cohesively in an AAR but which I've found to be worth the cost. YMMV of course and that's one of the nice things about the game. There are MANY different approaches and many of these approaches are valid. It all depends on how well the approach you take fits into your grand strategic objective and how it is suited vs the particular opponent you play. Aim to get the super-planes into action in mid-44 but collapse in late-43 and you'll never get to see them in action . That tends to be the most common scenario played out in AARs from what I can see.

I don't really see the Pasty's value in attacking ground targets much - between Allied flak, the nightmare it would be to try to get escorting fighters for it and defensive CAP I can't see it being anything more than an airframe that would force the Allies to be honest about rear-area CAP to stop raids plastering some planes on the ground or smash up some ships at anchorage. That has a great deal of value in itself however, but the G3M3 can do that, and you get it much earlier. However, giving the IJA an airframe that can do it gives you that much more flexibility.

I'm completely sold on the use of the Patsy as a kami however. The only two downsides I see are that the late arrival date means there won't be any serious pools of this airframe, so what you produce is what you get. The other is that you'll be lucky to get fighters to fly in escort mode on strikes with this thing, so it's a write off against opposing CAP.

Have you seen any evidence that it's amazing max altitude gives it an easier time breaching CAP? If so, this airframe has me very excited.

True, but starting on Dec 7th doesn't give you any inherent advantage in pushing the deployment date of the airframe forward.

True, I mentioned the date of 7th December 1941 not from the point of view of an in-game advantage in research but to highlight that planning for 1945/46 should begin from Day 1. If you plan for 1945/46 from December 41 it becomes much easier to see which upgrade paths and R&D are unnecessary in '42, '43 and 44, allowing you to save resources there, freeing these resources up to speed up the Ki94 etc.

It's different of course if you capitalize on the upgrade chain to bring late war airframes forward but that doesn't apply here.

Why? I don't remember it being outruled or ruled in one way or the other.

Withdrawing the Japanese air force is one solution to the mid-war airplane shift, but it's contingent upon having an opponent that won't capitalize on it or isn't in a position to do so.

It is contingent upon the opponent and how you've shaped the battlefield. Also, it depends on the cost you are willing to pay. E.g in late 42 to early 43 many Japanese players are frittering away planes over Burma defending multiple bases and taking attritional losses at a ratio that serves to increase the experience delta in favour of the Allied air forces. This defence of these bases and resource points usually ends up with the resource points destroyed and several hundred IJAF and IJNAF fighters destroyed. What I've done in similar situations is simply withdraw the air force, push AAA forward and let the resources be destroyed while the AAA attrits the Allied air forces. The end result is that the resources are lost a little earlier, at which time the Allied player using begins bombing the ground forces continuing their own attritional bomber losses to AAA, they lose the opportunity to increase the A2A experience delta in their favour and the IJAF and IJNAF are preserved. Of course I take the opportunity to mix in some CAP/LRCAP traps by concentrating the IJAF and IJNAF from time to time and inflict disproportionate losses occasionally while preserving the IJAF and IJNAF to deploy en masse ( rested, with high availability levels and with high experience levels - because the pilots have been training this whole time ) to resist the Allies at the crucial point and time.

Another way to look at it is that I won't risk the arm of decision except at the point and time of decision. Others view the arm of decision as something to be used everywhere, all the time. You can get away with this strategic dispersion as the Allies but not as the Japanese. Obviously, that's just my opinion.

I don't really see the Pasty's value in attacking ground targets much

I have used the Patsy very successfully in massed night raids on B-29 bases. This avoids daytime CAP.

Here's how I see the maths of the situation:
A. Multiple glen-equipped subs conducting recon of Allied bases backed up by IJN subs in the base hexes themselves (increased DL and rescues some downed aircrew)
B. Ideally some high-flying daytime recon also (increases DL).
C. Place 300 Patsy on night raids. Let's assume they only destroy a dozen B-29s a raid but let's assume they can mount 5 raids a month. That's 60 B-29s destroyed a month. Let's assume that costs me 120 Patsy a month lost to AAA. It shouldn't but lets worst-case this.

I think that 2160 points of HI expended to kill 60 B29s is a bargain. That's just 36 HI per B-29. Also, it is costing me bomber pilots and not fighter pilots so in the attritional fight I'm spreading my pilot cost per B-29 destroyed over a wider range ( fighter and bomber pilots ). That's also good. I'm also causing the Allies to shift more and more fighters to night-time defence vs daytime sweeps. That acts to preserve my fighter pilots also.... remember that a fighter doing night-time CAP isn't doing daytime sweeping and the fewer doing daytime missions the better.

Another reason I like the Patsy is the range....
I had great success with flying Patsy kamikaze groups to bypassed bases well behind Allied lines, combining them with Mavis or Emily searches ( or, if that wasn't feasible a screen of Glen-equipped subs forming a scouting line ) and triggering a single kamikaze strike on un-capped Allied convoys moving supplies and materiel. A 30 plane strike of Patsys averaged 50% hit rates vs uncapped merchant vessels, even in 1945. With production of 300 a month I was able to sustain 1-2 strikes like this a week. The Allies have an excess of materiel but merchant ships shipping supplies to the front damaged at a rate of 700 a year is something even they have to respond to. That response will weaken and delay their schwerpunkt --- which is all Japan can hope for at this stage.

This had 3 effects:
a) It causes the Allies to have to CAP everything and/or send CVEs to escort merchant convoys.
b) It causes the Allies to commit bombers and naval forces to suppressing these bases.
C) It can prompt the diversion of ground combat units to invade these bases if they prove troublesome enough.

Whichever happened I was happy because it diverted air, naval and ground units from the spearpoint thus increasing my survivability and increasing Allied losses at the spearpoint as per Lanchester Laws and, necessarily, slowed the main Allied thrust.


As to height... I think this depends on which airplane database you use but when I played the Patsy could fly over any CV-based CAP. It was susceptible to land-based fighters who had extremely high effective ceilings. The end result was that if the USN moved outside of LBA LRCAP range the Patsy could fly over their CAP and launch into a terminal dive with only the AAA capable of stopping it. Of course the AAA stopped most of them but expending 1,080 HI (30 Patsys) in order to get hits on 3 USN warships in the middle of the USN CV Deathstar is a very good exchange ratio I would take all day long.

Lastly, another great benefit of the Patsy was to be preserved during the initial day or two of battle and to be expended on Days 3 and 4 when damaged Allied warships would be trying to limp back to port in small TFs which were not co-ordinated with the USN CV Deathstar. I sank many damaged merchants, CLs, DD, CVEs, CVLs and quite a few CVs this way. BBs and CAs are relatively impervious.



The above are a lot of benefits that the same investment of HI and pilots into Betties and Nells etc won't give you. Late-war Japanese strategy is all about maximising your return per HI point, supply point and pilot invested.

but the G3M3 can do that

Let's assume the G3M has a range of 20 hexes on an airfield strike mission and the Patsy has a range of 36 hexes on an airfield strike mission. These figures should be in the ballpark. From any given base the G3M can imperil an area with a diameter of 40 hexes. The Patsy is a threat to an area with a diameter of 72 hexes. Even if we assume the Allies are only based along a single axis ( which certainly isn't true if you have prepared bypassed bases for this 1945 eventuality throughout 1942 and 1943 --- long-term planning again ) that's another 16 hexes of bases along which they've got to base daytime CAP, just in case.

So the very fact that you are using Patsys for this mission instead of Nells would force the Allied, on average, to commit 80% more fighters to CAP bases within your bomber range. It would also require 80% more fighters committed to LRCAP convoys. All of those fighters mean fewer fighters at the schwerpunkt. Obviously the Allies can commit lower quality pilots to these rear areas and so lessen the impact but this isn't a war-winning plan. It is just another card to play to shift things a little more in favour of Japan and to complicate the Allied player's life. Japan will still lose, it'll just take a little longer and cost a bit more for it to do so.


Of course all of the above only worked some of the time and it always resulted in very high Japanese losses but by 1944 and 1945 the goal is simply to survive to January 1946 and, ideally, to do so by trading VPs at such a ratio that the Allies cannot achieve 2:1 by January 1946. The Japanese are never going to win and no-one who plays the Japanese side should ever expect that. You can however, play skillfully on the road to as small a defeat as possible as late as possible. That's the only realistic goal, IMO ( especially since a game abandoned by an Allied player who resigns can be picked up by another ).

Why? I don't remember it being outruled or ruled in one way or the other.

As then you can bring late-war airframes forward in a more timely manner. The main examples are using the A6 tree to get the A6M8 well ahead of schedule (though god knows why you'd want a Zero airframe for the late game) as well as the Ki-100 Tony for the IJA.

There are a couple other cases like this with IJ airframes, I don't have all of them immediate at hand.

It is contingent upon the opponent and how you've shaped the battlefield. Also, it depends on the cost you are willing to pay. E.g in late 42 to early 43 many Japanese players are frittering away planes over Burma defending multiple bases and taking attritional losses at a ratio that serves to increase the experience delta in favour of the Allied air forces. This defence of these bases and resource points usually ends up with the resource points destroyed and several hundred IJAF and IJNAF fighters destroyed. What I've done in similar situations is simply withdraw the air force, push AAA forward and let the resources be destroyed while the AAA attrits the Allied air forces. The end result is that the resources are lost a little earlier, at which time the Allied player using begins bombing the ground forces continuing their own attritional bomber losses to AAA, they lose the opportunity to increase the A2A experience delta in their favour and the IJAF and IJNAF are preserved. Of course I take the opportunity to mix in some CAP/LRCAP traps by concentrating the IJAF and IJNAF from time to time and inflict disproportionate losses occasionally while preserving the IJAF and IJNAF to deploy en masse ( rested, with high availability levels and with high experience levels - because the pilots have been training this whole time ) to resist the Allies at the crucial point and time.

I get where you're coming from here. The strategy is sound, but it's the practicality I question to some extent. Allowing the Allies to build up a strong pool of pilots, especially bomber pilots, with high EXP and high DEF skills can be severely determinantal to your air war as these high EXP/DEF pilots tend to do amazing things in night bombing raids. Allowing them nearly free reign over Burma can only make that process quicker, but I think you're right that the overall advantage to what you suggest lies with the Japanese.

I have used the Patsy very successfully in massed night raids on B-29 bases. This avoids daytime CAP.

Yup, what you propose looks solid. I'm all for anything that kills B-29s on the ground, as well as add to the Allied turn fatigue.

Let's assume the G3M has a range of 20 hexes on an airfield strike mission and the Patsy has a range of 36 hexes on an airfield strike mission. These figures should be in the ballpark. From any given base the G3M can imperil an area with a diameter of 40 hexes. The Patsy is a threat to an area with a diameter of 72 hexes. Even if we assume the Allies are only based along a single axis ( which certainly isn't true if you have prepared bypassed bases for this 1945 eventuality throughout 1942 and 1943 --- long-term planning again ) that's another 16 hexes of bases along which they've got to base daytime CAP, just in case.

Solid logic, the only thing I would say is that you can have the G3M3 doing a less effective role from 5/42 (with no R&D) than you could with the Pasty from '45 (assuming R&D), as well as the resulting aircraft pools to boot. There's the issue of the IJA/IJN pilot/squadron numbers which is obviously important.

I'm also not convinced a diligent opponent would permit the existance of bypassed positions going in to 1945. It's not even required to take the hex, merely to bomb the supply away.

Of course all of the above only worked some of the time and it always resulted in very high Japanese losses but by 1944 and 1945 the goal is simply to survive to January 1946 and, ideally, to do so by trading VPs at such a ratio that the Allies cannot achieve 2:1 by January 1946. The Japanese are never going to win and no-one who plays the Japanese side should ever expect that. You can however, play skillfully on the road to as small a defeat as possible as late as possible. That's the only realistic goal, IMO ( especially since a game abandoned by an Allied player who resigns can be picked up by another ).

Well, you've a convert to the Pasty's cause, on paper at least. I'm interested to see if they work as well practically for me as they appear to do for you.

Slow down guys, I can't right that fast. [:D]

Got any combat reports, replays or (even better) saves handy with the Patsy operational?

I'm interested to see how it interacts with CAP, as well as it's damage profile versus various ships in the kami role.