Matrix Games Forums

This is a one time response, because you are telling people you have figured it out, when you have not figured it out. You are giving people a false impression. The eff data number is the projectile weight, but there are 9 different combat modes that calculate effectiveness from data 9 different ways, off the base data number. You dink with the base, your game goes into the dumper.

You may, of course, do your mod in any manner you please. But your conclusions are not based on anything having to do with the game's combat algorithms.

ORIGINAL: inqistor
Actually I think it is an error.

No, it is not an error.

I do not know,

An accurate statement

if in-game mounts actually increase chance of hit,

They do not.

but there are MG(x2), and Quad-MGs as single Devices, so it seems triple-AA-mounts should be also one Device.

No, they should not.

Surprise, surprise, there is Device 602, Triple 25mm AA gun. I do not see it used anywhere, so...

Surprise, surprise, device 602 is a holdover from WiTP-1 and is not used in WiTP-AE

what are benefits of several mountings on ships?

exactly what they are supposed to be.

Let the fanboi have his fun, John.

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Let the fanboi have his fun, John.

Yeah, you're right.

I just hate it when people say they have it all figured out, and they don't, and then the clones try to play it and everything explodes. And then they blame it on us. It's a fine line to walk. Just have to put a stake in the ground that says 'beyond here be bullpoop". After that, fanbois can dance the mongo fandango, for all I care.

Remember Sid? This is nothing.

Well, I have set up small scenario, and initial testing does not seem encouraging.
In one instance Yamato even used 3 points of ammo, from one of 46cm gun emplacements, but it got 16 hits anyway, and Allies lost only 3 planes to flak. I have to check, what will be loses without San-Shiki.

ORIGINAL: JWE

This is a one time response, because you are telling people you have figured it out, when you have not figured it out. You are giving people a false impression. The eff data number is the projectile weight, but there are 9 different combat modes that calculate effectiveness from data 9 different ways, off the base data number. You dink with the base, your game goes into the dumper.

You may, of course, do your mod in any manner you please. But your conclusions are not based on anything having to do with the game's combat algorithms.

My conclusions are, that effect is copied directly from projectile weight, which you just confirmed. What is your point?

but there are MG(x2), and Quad-MGs as single Devices, so it seems triple-AA-mounts should be also one Device.

No, they should not.

But they were used in WITP? Why did you resigned from them in AE?

Surprise, surprise, there is Device 602, Triple 25mm AA gun. I do not see it used anywhere, so...

Surprise, surprise, device 602 is a holdover from WiTP-1 and is not used in WiTP-AE

But they are listed in game database! Even with two versions, also double 25mm, and 13mm MGs:

It seems, that "no 4Es below 10k on Naval Attack" is pretty common HR, so I have set San-Shiki ceiling to just below that.

Initial testing - last mission of Yamato:
Two fleets - Yamato, CL, and 7 DDs vs 3 Essex class CVs.
No FOW, no Advanced Weather Effects, 4 hexes range. H2H.

5 test runs with San-Shiki, and 5 with standard guns. In first case there were ALWAYS 2 strikes, Yamato was sunk in 2nd test, after only 3 hits, and it reported lowest aircraft loses in all tests, which clearly shows, than most loses are generated by larger guns (no other ships were sunk in this turn). During 1st test for 3 days, there was no strikes, because of weather.

In second case there were 4(!) strikes in 3 first tests, then 1 strike in 4th, and 2 strikes in fifth. It seems, that amount of AA fire lower chance of additional strikes (lower morale? I have to check that). Yamato was sunk in 1st test, but only during 4th strike. Weather stopped strike only once.

Results:
Aircraft loses, checked at Allied side. Written as flak/operational. After five tests, there are average loses:

With San-Shiki:
DB 3/1 1/0 6/3 1/3 4/2..... 3/1.8
TB 3/1 1/0 9/1 8/2 7/3..... 5.6/1.4

Standard guns:
DB 4/1 4/5 2/2 0/2 3/2..... 2.6/2.4
TB 4/0 1/2 4/0 0/1 0/1..... 1.8/0.8

Conclusions:
San-Shiki does not seem to lower number of hits, despite lower number of strikes. Largest reported use of 46cm ammunition was 4 (in one turret). DB loses seems comparable, although flak are slightly higher for San-Shiki. TB loses are much higher. That could suggest, that lower attacks are either easier to hit, or can be targeted by larger number of shots. What is interesting, that actually total DB loses were higher for standard guns (5 vs 4.8), but it is probably because Yamato was quickly sunk in first attempt.

Only Yamato was equipped in new guns, so I have to run further tests, with larger number of ships, equipped with San-Shiki. As soon, as I figure out, how to send coordinated strikes, without increasing experience of pilots [:)]


First curiosity - DP guns have Rate of Fire similar to this of Naval types. It seems to be 1/10th of accuracy, however this accuracy is calculated.
However, as you can see on screenshot below:
All 12.7cm guns have ROF of five. It seems somehow low, according to this page, it was:
Rate Of Fire 5 to 10 rounds per minute

Taking increasing, and lowering into consideration, to whole 75 degrees, well maybe it could be 5(Loading Angle +5 to +10 degrees (Hand ramming)), However, in case of max lower elevation (like 40 in Type A model), it probably should be higher.

What is actually interesting, are two AA guns, which are in NO ANY statistics better, than standard DP guns:
12.7 cm/40 (5") Type 89
have Rate Of Fire Type 89: 8 - 14 rounds per minute
and could be Loading Angle Any
So, I see no reason to put it under 8.

Also 10 cm/65 (3.9") Type 98, have Rate Of Fire 15 - 21 rounds per minute

also Loading Angle Any. How it could have ROF lower than 15?

If that would skew naval actions results, maybe it would be better to set them as pure AA guns? What is the in-game difference between DP, and AA?

Further testing. 3BBs, and 3 CAs, vs the same CVs. 5 hexes range
It seems neither fatigue, not morale have significant impact, after strikes (actually average morale rises overall). Damages seems to be distributed completely random, fleets end up with minimal damage, but sometimes half of the fleet is obliterated.

As a side note, I made an experiment with B29 strike, on 6k feet, at 3 hexes range. Planes were shot down really rarely (2 flak, and 1 operational loss in 5 tests), but most (100% in most cases) seems to be damaged during attack (damaged also very rarely resulted in operational loss)

1st test. Only one attack, after one turn of bad weather:

SBD-3 Dauntless x 26
TBM-3 Avenger x 18


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 10 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 3
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB Nagato
CA Tone
CA Myoko, Bomb hits 3, on fire

2nd test, 3 attacks:

SBD-3 Dauntless x 55


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 12 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 4
BB Haruna
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 8, on fire
CA Myoko, Bomb hits 1, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TBM-3 Avenger x 18


Allied aircraft losses
TBM-3 Avenger: 5 destroyed, 6 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Myoko, on fire
BB Haruna
BB Nagato, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBD-3 Dauntless x 29


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Nagato
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 4, on fire

3rd test. 2 attacks, half of fleet is sunk, the only occurence of actual sinking in 5 tests:

SBD-3 Dauntless x 55
TBM-3 Avenger x 18


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 16 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CA Tone
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires
CA Takao, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 10, heavy fires
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBD-3 Dauntless x 52
TBM-3 Avenger x 41


Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 8 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 16, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Myoko, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
CA Tone, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

4th test. Only one attack, after one turn of bad weather:

SBD-3 Dauntless x 55
TBM-3 Avenger x 18


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 13 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 10 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 8, on fire
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 3
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 10, on fire
CA Tone, Torpedo hits 1

5th test, 2 attacks:

SBD-3 Dauntless x 29
TBM-3 Avenger x 18


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 11 damaged
TBM-3 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 10 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB Yamato
BB Nagato
CA Takao
CA Tone, Bomb hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBD-3 Dauntless x 54


Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 destroyed, 7 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
BB Nagato, Bomb hits 8, on fire
CA Tone
BB Yamato, Bomb hits 1

Loses, again as flak/operational:
DB 3/1 6/2 7/3 7/2 7/5 ... 6/2.6
TB 6/0 11/0 10/6 6/1 3/1 ... 7.2/1.5

Conclusions:
DB loses are doubled, TB are around 15% higher. It does not seems to make great difference, so I did not made tests, with unmodified guns.
Damages, and ammo usage:
What we all already know, even for mid-sized strikes ammo usage is around 1/3rd. There is no indication of any pattern in damage. It is pure luck.
So, it seems, that San-Shiki have some impact on battle, but it is not significant. Especially for Allied side.

I do not know why, DBs get far less loses, than TBs, despite being 2 times more common. It is possible that altitude have greatest impact. I took a look what can cause it, but the only possibility would be 13.2mm MG, yet it is pretty rare on ships.
So, additional planned changes:
increasing 25mm MG ceiling to 9k, to keep with "reason for 4Es to attack over 10k"
increasing 12cm rocket ceiling to 4k, currently they have 1800 maximum ceiling, which is below minimal Allied exit altitude for DBs. Fuzes were supposed to be set at 8.5 seconds, and with 656 fps, it is pretty close to 4k.
increasing 13mm MG to 13k. Currently it is in middle of DB exit ceiling (3200), and let it be reason to NOT fly only at 10k feet

I am also thinking of change to early Commando squad. It is in production from 9/42 anyway.
So, maybe those Australian companies should begin with fire-squads? If it will represent only 4 (or even 3) soldiers, that would allow them to fit into SS. Of course only ONE squad, and without additional supply, so its usefulness will be minimal (after 3 days maximum disruption, and landing in Move Mode), so the only use will be either recon mission, or attack on empty base, and probably less than 30% chance on success anyway.

I have made simple experiment. Taking all calculations it seems, that there is possibility to load Japan SS, as it takes 6 point, for every infantry point weight. 3 possible Devices were SNLF, Thai, and Mongolian HMG squad, of this, I think, only SNLF can be non-perma-restricted. Here is picture, it IS possible to load SS with SNLF HMG squad. So, after modification, Commando now also fits in larger SS, but should it be size 3, or 4? Smaller size will allow additional supply, but using only ONE sub will have minimal chance of success (disruption during landing), so this kind of operation will require small flotilla anyway.
It probably also should be weaker. I think that would be 1 BAR, and rest armed with SMGs, or virtually changing their weight, and keep statistics, as they are now.

Scenario 2 is ready and uploaded, but since I already messing with it, I thought that I can modify also Japanese pilot numbers, as they are unnecessary large, at the game beginning. Here are numbers to compare Scenarios 1, and 2:
Scenario 1:
year Army Navy
pool 2202 1700
1941 195 150
1942 185 150
1943+ 615 480

Scenario 2:
pool 2802 2200
1941 320 320
1942 310 290
1943 815 680
1944 1215 680
1945 1615 680
1946 615 480

Well, 1615+680 in 1945. Can Japan economy handle those numbers, even with intact industry? Probably half of historical 1943 training numbers in 1941/1942 should be enough. And number should drop in 1945, after 1944 peak.

From FAQ, at TAKI's site:

The Japanese produced following kinds of HEAT shell.
Among them, the HEAT of Type 41 Mountain Gun was used in action and destroyed several Allied tanks in Burma and other places. The use of the HEAT for other guns is not known.

Below is the photo on the HEAT of Type 94 Mountain Gun. The HEAT of Type 94 Mountain Gun was not produced though it was developed.

Wikipedia actually lists:
Type 2 Hollow charge - 7.81 lb (3 inches of RHA)
So, probably, imported Hollow-Charge technology was also used for developing new ammunition for guns.
I do not see Type 41 in game (only Type 94), but if they are unified, it probably should be another version of gun present, introduced in late 1942, with better penetration.
I even can explain, why Type 94 was not equipped with new AP shell, it had over 20% less muzzle velocity.

Well, it seems there is general Device 746 75mm Infantry Gun, which represents all types of Regimental guns (mainly Type 41 Mountain Gun). But during checking those Devices I have discovered, that actually ALL Japanese 75mm guns have different muzzle velocity, which should influence chance of hitting moving targets (tanks mostly). I have no idea, how Hard Attack is calculated, it seems it is 26 for most cases, which do not represent difference in guns. I got Device 1157 75mm Pack Howitzer, as foundation. It have Hard Attack 27, and muzzle velocity 381 m/s, so by simple calculation:
75mm Pack Howitzer 381/27=14.1111111111
14.(1) will be basic modifier, for calculations for different muzzle velocity speeds. Changes for Hard Attack:
Type 41 Mountain Gun 435/14.1111111111=30.8267716535
Type 94 Mountain Gun 355->25.157480315
Type 95 Field Gun 500->35.4330708661
Type 38 510->36.1417322835
Type 90 683->48.4015748031
It seems, that actually I got Type 90 almost right, during first change. It seems also, that most of Japanese Guns should be slightly better, of course none of it is even close to standard AT guns.
In late 1942 production of Device 746 will be switched to similar gun, but with better penetration. Now, should it be 75mm (according to Wikipedia), or 100mm (according to TAKIs site)? Field Guns had it at 120 already, while Mountain types at 40.

During research I have found another reference for shaped charge modification:

HEAT rounds for these old infantry guns made them semi-useful anti-tank guns, particularly the German 150 mm guns (the Japanese 70 mm and Italian 65 mm infantry guns also had HEAT rounds available for them by 1944 but they were not very effective).

Actually wikipedia page, about 70mm Type 92 Battalion Gun says nothing about this projectile, however US Field Manual lists "hollow charge AP" in Model 41 (1908) 75-mm infantry gun, and in some cases"High explosive (long pointed shell)", which supposed to indicate special projectile, with modified aerodynamics giving longer range. I have not found, when they were introduced. Most guns in-game seems, to have listed ranges. Only Device 756 15cm T89 Gun seems to have slightly too short (20k, while manual says 22k, or even 27k).

Now, when will be exactly available for them by 1944?

I took a look, and it seems, that unit supply requirements is simply ONE point for every Device (and HALF for disabled), so consumption will not be greater, because squads are bigger.

Also, changing armament of ship class will not change armament of ships beginning in this class (although probably will change it during upgrade). There is some DDs, which begin game with early 12.7cm guns, so they can be left without San-Shiki, however larger ships have first upgrades FAR too late (after mid-1943). I have found only 2 CA classes, and 2 CVs, which can be safely kept without San-Shiki, as they upgrade no later, that mid 1942.

I think, I will give Shaped-Charge for 75mm Regimental Gun a while, after British became active in Burma (probably month, after Chindits arrive).

I am not going to repeat, what I have written here, but I have made initial calculations.

Scenario 1:
There is 1643 Army pilots on map, at the first turn, there is 967 Navy pilots on land, and 709 aboard ships.

I have made rough calculations on number of 2-pilot planes:
There is 330+23 (plus is reserve) Army 2-engine bombers, and 256+81 Navy.
There is 135 Army transport planes, and 32+2 Navy.
And, there is 50+13 patrol planes.

Also, there are 99 Army bombers in pools, and 46 Navy, 29 Transport planes, and 6 Patrol planes.

That gives 616 planes, with 2-pilots in Army, and 486 in Navy.

The result is good for Navy, but Army initial pool shrinks to only 241 pilots! And there is already around 500 free slots to fill in on-map units!

I have also got initial 2-pilot planes production, and was going to subtract it, from monthly pilot gains, but there is 23 SALLYs, and 34 LILYs, and with only 62 army pilots in December 1941, that would shrink it to 5.
So, even not cutting extra for 2-pilot planes, will keep Army reinforcements pretty tight during 1942 (in January 1942 Army training will jump to over 2700 per year).

I am not sure yet, what to do with experience levels, as it is possible to set in separately in every year. It seems, that taking 1/10th of flying hours will do nicely, but there is need to also include on-map training.

Here is graph of experience decline, and initial pilot pools for pure Scenario 1, and modified Scenario 1.

Well, I cranked the historical numbers. I made rough estimation of ratio of 2-pilots planes to 1-pilot planes, and subtracted it from monthly pilot numbers. 1941-1942 was pretty easy, but I did not want to search exact Navy:Army/Year production, so later estimations are pretty crude.
It is made on current-year production (when they actually beginning of training), not future year estimation. As a result, it is lower, as with war progression more fighters were produced, at the cost of heavier bombers.

The whole goal was to get the exact number of pilots, in exact year they appeared, so as game-engine works numbers may seems strange.

Mainly, the quantity jump was possible, because time of training was reduced. In 1941 (pre-war), pilots were getting 2 years of theoretical preparation (and 6 months of basic flying), after that 1 full year of flying.
In 1942 it was cut to 1.5 years of theory (probably also with basic flying), and 8-10 months of flying after that.
As numbers shows, maximum decline in-game experience for fresh pilots should be 5 points, as getting it bigger makes strange situation, where last months 10-12 class cadets were more experienced, than fully-trained fresh recruits.

In 1943 Army resigned from advanced training, and made special units to teach it after-graduation. This is the moment their experience falls. In September 1944 fuel shortages seriously hampered overall training, so from that moment both branches lose experience.

Here is modification. Branch, initial pools, and then experience, and monthly numbers. 1945/1946 numbers are simple halving, as there are no data about possible planes production, as war have ended before cadets could graduate.

ARMY. 800 40 165 35 155 30 750 30 350 25 175 25 90
NAVY 1350 40 130 35 165 35 620 35 310 30 155 25 75

I really hard searched for every possible pilot for Army, as initial calculations shown only 241 free pilots. It seems, that there was recently opened Pilot School in Manchukuo. Initial number of pilots was 30, and from 30 August 1940 there was regualr teaching. Hard to tell, what was number of cadets, but since there was mutiny of around 100 cadet-pilots in January 1941, conclusion shows, that during 4 months of 1940, on average, it should be at least 25 (25*4=100). So initial Army pool is increased by this number, but it was still not enough...

Luckily, there was also Manchukuo National Airways, paramilitary organization, which was mainly flying for IJArmy anyway (and have some volunteer-fighters), it should be possible to recruit them, as transport pilots in-case of emergency. Simple calculation shows, that organization had, at least, 43 1-pilot, and 24 2-pilots planes, not-used-by-Japan (as I do not have any date, when planes were acquired, so Japanese types could be delivered after war started).
Considering also, that there was Imperial Japanese Airways, mostly owned by government, and its civilian operation were suspended in January 1942, and there was also China Airways, they should easily provide 200-250 possible transport pilots, in case of emergency. So initial pool of 800 Army pilots seems reasonable (and if you are getting it below 200, you surely had to draw extra pilots into transport units, anyway).

So here are final numbers. You can also see, that actually IJArmy have NEVER more airmen, than IJNavy. It is also clear, that they were unable to train more, than IJNavy in any year. Hard to tell, what it says about pilot numbers (as BETTYs had really large crews), but even, when pilot numbers for IJArmy were greater, it could be only by small margin.

To keep closer to history, I get few modification for Manchukuo Air Force. All 3 fighter units begin game with 25 experience, which seems strange, as filling it with reserve pilots automatically make them better (reserve have 35 exp in stock). It seem they were created year-by-year, and since they have plenty time to train, I have modified them with decreasing experience, so 1st get 35, 2nd 30, and 3rd left at 25.

Also, I have added average commander 1st Lieutenant Uta (anyone know his name?), commanding 1st IMAF, and there is also 2Lt Sono-o Kasuga pilot with 40exp, arriving in 2nd IMAF in mid-1944. This is first Manchukuo pilot, who successfully rammed B-29.


Now, in-game analysis of pilot number changes:
It seems, that during whole 1942 it is IJNavy, who have more trained pilots, as a consequence it should get main effort in this period. It means, that it will be ZERO, which should be main fighter, and suddenly it seems, that not hurrying TOJO into development have historical reasoning, as IJArmy had simply not enough trained pilots to fight any serious actions in 1942.
As a side note, it seems that Allied strategy should now concentrate on beating IJArmy Airforce in 1942, because it is good chance to knock it into defensive for few months.

But even after 1943 boost, both branches are almost equal in numbers, until end of the war. Anyway, just look at graphs, Navy numbers rise during whole conflict, while Army stays the same, until 1943, and then even drops! And indeed, Army loses are greater at the war beginning phases.
Here is reminding of link to my source.

All this talk about Ki-44 made me wondering, and it seems that...

Every source writes something completely different [:D]


Anyway, one thing is clear - there was 40 planes of TYPE I produced, since January 1942, and to simulate it in-game, player would have to put some factory into production of outdated model, so... I just set the date of KI-44 TOJO one month earlier. It is already on map, so not, that it will be some extra useless short-time airframe.

Changelog is pretty long, so I put it here (It is actually RTF, so it may looks strange in some portions, just change its type to RTF). Scenario 1 is uploaded at post #4.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I have discovered, that actually ALL Japanese 75mm guns have different muzzle velocity, which should influence chance of hitting moving targets (tanks mostly).

Only if their crews don't know how to lead the target.

Even if they aren't taking lead into consideration, let's look at the reality and try to figure out whether the muzzle velocity is a significant factor. Say we have two guns, Gun A with 250m/s mvel, Gun B with 500m/s mvel.

Assume a target at 500m, a nice typical battle range, though unreasonably long range for built-up or forested areas.

Gun A's shell will arrive at the target 2s after firing.
Gun B's shell will arrive at the target 1s after firing.

Not really that much of a difference for the guy at the receiving end.

Now let's assume a moving target at the same range. For maximum difficulty, we'll assume it is moving across the lime of fire at 90 degrees to give the maximum rate of change of angle of aim. Let's also assume it is moving at 20mph (unreasonably high for many armoured vehicles). In 2s it will have moved 20*1600/3600*2=17.7m, in 0.25 seconds it will have moved half that, or 8.8m.

In other words, even for the exceptionally low velocity Gun A, and in the worst case, the target is likely to have moved barely three times its own length (a Sherman was a fraction under 6m) between the gunner pulling the lanyard and the shell arriving at the target, for Gun B it will have moved half that. And that's for the worst case, for any other direction of travel the actual shift in angle/shift in the point of aim falls off rapidly.

Muzzle velocity isn't a significant factor for firing against ground targets, they simply don't move fast enough for it to matter at battle ranges. It is significant for penetration of AP shot, but that's already factored into the gun statistics.

Scenario 6 is uploaded in post #6.
I am feeling, I should have tested those 12mm AA Rockets, as even developers think, they are not working. To be sure, I gave them 10 effect (from previous 0).
Also, there is 10 extra Naval pilots. I do not know, how many really died during Pearl Harbor attack, but I know at least one accident, where pilot crash-landed on some forgotten island, and started small revolution there (which actually leaded directly to isolation of all Japanese-descendant-USCitizens)

Now, I have thought about Royal Thai Air Force

It will add almost 150 planes. Some bombers, and fighters, which can be useful in initial Burma attack, and will be in range of most Burma bases, to fight on air-superiority.
It seems, it will be complicated. All Thai bases should be under ONE perma-restricted command, so their air units could not move. But I do not think, it is possible to add another Area Command. There is already one Air Support unit, so only one another, smaller could be added, and probably another Air HQ, maybe static.

In other words - probably too much work.


Here is 1st Lieutenant Uta. I do not know even, what nationality he was, so not going to guess his name (Heck, maybe they all had names beginning on X, for example?).

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I have discovered, that actually ALL Japanese 75mm guns have different muzzle velocity, which should influence chance of hitting moving targets (tanks mostly).

Only if their crews don't know how to lead the target.

Even if they aren't taking lead into consideration, let's look at the reality and try to figure out whether the muzzle velocity is a significant factor. Say we have two guns, Gun A with 250m/s mvel, Gun B with 500m/s mvel.

Assume a target at 500m, a nice typical battle range, though unreasonably long range for built-up or forested areas.

Gun A's shell will arrive at the target 2s after firing.
Gun B's shell will arrive at the target 1s after firing.

Not really that much of a difference for the guy at the receiving end.

Nevertheless difference exists, and for similar error in aiming one gun will hit the target, while other will miss. Your calculations assume 100% hit probability, which is unreachable even during non-hostile training.
Also, as you can see in my calculations, US Pack-Howitzer have better statistics, than comparatively much faster Japanese Guns. Why is it? Advanced laser optics? Also, all pure AT Guns have Hard Attack at least THREE times of normal guns. So, what exactly Hard Attack represents?
And lastly, those numbers are still too small to even scratch Sherman [:D]

Well, no takers on Scenario 2 number of Japanese pilots, lets make some educated guesses:
It seems logical, that Japan could begin expanding its pilot program, before war started, it means that 2300 Naval, and 2700 Army pilots per year, could begin training in 1941. Considering linear expansion, half of this difference could be added to initial pools. That would leave them only slightly smaller, than Scenario 1 stock numbers.
Allow Japan to reach its projected, over 30000 trained pilots per year, in 1943, or 1944. That would mean 2500 pilots per month, but subtracting extra co-pilots for bombers, that would leave us pretty close to mid-war Scenario 2 numbers, which are currently 1615 (Army) + 680 (Navy) = 2295.


Thinking about earlier TOJO introduction. There are actually only two goals, to keep in mind:
1) Experimental unit in China should have spare planes, to allow it actually be in use. Especially with PDU off. That would suggest, that TOJO should be introduced as soon as possible
2) To avoid possibility for player, to use early model introduction, as jump point for earlier model II introduction. Since research seems to be capped at around 30 units, no matter how much planes you researching in ONE factory, it seems safe to set early model 3 MONTHS EARLIER.


And, speaking of TOJO:
Ho-301 seems to be very interesting weapon. Not much gun, but it actually resembles Bazooka. Its projectile is almost rocket-like, and have quite a lot explosives inside (identical number to 40mm Bofors). It is actually hard to find Bursting Charges for other air weapons. I have found only VYa-23, Ho-301 weights 3 times more, and have 4 times more explosive material. So, since VYa is rated at effect 5 in database, Ho-301 should be more than this. On the other side, I see not much reason, to give it any large penetration values, so I would say, Ho-301 should have 3-4 penetration, and effect 6+.