The Peggy is a torpedo bomber, so a different role, and becomes availabe much after the Lilly IIb. You can use Nicks for a variety of anti-ship roles, but I would rather have the DBs against amphibious groups and the like. Then again, I am a PDU:off player, so I use a variety of aircraft that PDU:On players probably do not use. Again, it is something to consider. There is a place, IMO, for the Lilly DB.
Some players like the Lilly. For me, it is simply not cost effective. IJN DB's are half the cost, and I easily have 3 or 4 groups on the beach*. More, the IJN DB's are already in production, so I don't need another production line.
That's just me though and I play PDU ON only.
* I always lose a Junyo or two, they are so thin skinned. And then of course a Zuiho as well ... anyway, I always have a few IJN groups beached.
2. IIRC, only three Japanese aircraft get the MAD: the E13A1 Jake, the Ki-49-Ia, and the B5N2 Kate. Using the same logic you apply with using Ann's for asw, you should use the Jakes or Kates.
What about the Lorna? I mention the Helen because it is army, and the army has a surfeit of bomber groups by late 1942. Also, if the desire is to sink or badly damage a sub, the Jake does not carry a payload sufficient to sink a sub. Again, I mention it only as something to consider. I like to use IJA assets for ASW. I like to commit all my available float planes to naval search.
1. I kind of equate building the Lorna to putting tits on a bull - a two engine aircraft that has a 2/3 range for ASW and requires an IJN level bomber air group to use? I'd rather use the air group for Naval Attack.
2. For me, the issue is one of utilization of air groups. With PDU:on as is the case in the OP's game, I'd reserve the IJA LBA for other purposes and use the float planes, BUT...
3. This answer also depends upon house rules for resizing. If no limits are placed upon resizing, you can free up a lot of float planes by upgrading C5M2 Babs air groups to D4Y1-C Judy starting in late 1942. Resizing them on carriers and splitting them up adds a LOT of Nav search capability. With drop tanks, range is 17/21 hexes so your float plane more limited range is better utilized in ASW. In that environment, I don't want my Jake's as much for Nav Search by late 1942.
4. The IJA gets the Ki-67-Ia (T), which is an anti-ship platform late war, and I would argue that the Ki-45-KAIa Nick is a better anti shipping weapon than the Ki-48 DB versions. Aside from range, the Nick is superior. The Nick's center line 20mm will make up for reduced accuracy from not dive bombing. Both aircraft are for use against lighter targets anyway: the Nick only carries the 250kg bombs, but the Lily is worse with only 100 kg bombs.
The Peggy is a torpedo bomber, so a different role, and becomes availabe much after the Lilly IIb. You can use Nicks for a variety of anti-ship roles, but I would rather have the DBs against amphibious groups and the like. Then again, I am a PDU:off player, so I use a variety of aircraft that PDU:On players probably do not use. Again, it is something to consider. There is a place, IMO, for the Lilly DB.
1. My answers all depend upon PDU:On since the answers are to his question. I'm not saying the Lily is useless - I'm saying that with PDU:On it's advantages are few enough that I would prune my production tree of it. With PDU:On, I see the end goal to be minimizing/focusing air frames and research. I see the Ki-45 KAIa as a much better choice.
2. Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy is a Level bomber (Type = 04 - Level Bomber) and with PDU:On units flying Ki-21/30/32/48/51 etc can all upgrade to it. It is not a TB (Type = 12 Torpedo Bomber). It can carry a Torpedo, but it is not a TB. It is, however, an "anti-ship asset".
5. Bombing targets is reported to be inefficient for gaining exp, but flying CAP is not... The Ki-45's can fly CAP in back areas to gain Exp.
Bombing targets is inefficient and uses too much supply to gain xp. CAP is much better.
Beyond the supply consumed by the bombing itself, what I mean is that the time required to raise Exp from say 50 to 60 is reported to be longer using bombing (e.g. Ground Attack on an isolated/undefended base or LCU) than it is with CAP.
Back in the old days of WitP (pre-AE), pilots could be trained to very high Exp levels by repeated bombing missions against an empty base. Players argued to slow down exp advancement from bombing missions because of that. I think the model imposes a penalty on bombing with respect to Exp gain. My impression from limited testing is that bombing missions do not raise Exp at the same rate as CAP in WitP:AE and I have seen posts that suggest the same.
I have not, however, done much testing. I think the evidence is a little better than anecdotal, but not by much. My point here was therefore that the Ki-45 (Fighter Bomber) could fly CAP missions where the Ki-48 (Dive Bomber) can not. (And therefore Ki-45 might be faster to train for pilots with Exp > 50).
Just to chime in. As a test, I bombed several enemy bases with enemy AA units in them, and ALL my bombs missed each time. However, many bombers got raises in GroundBomb skill, probably due to taking AA fire. Go figure.
ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
It can carry a Torpedo, but it is not a TB. It is, however, an "anti-ship asset".
Is there any difference in performance - i.e. is the TB intrinsically better at torpedo bombing (given same pilot exp etc) than an "anti-ship asset"?
I do not know. However, given the volume and frequency of AFB complaints about the effectiveness of Netty aircraft (which are also Level Bombers - not Torpedo Bombers), my guess is that they are equally effective and that no special coding exists for Level Bomber vs Torpedo Bomber with respect to hit probability. IJA Peggy's are likely to be more effective at torpedo attacks than Netty's because of their higher speed, durability, and armor.
The problem with Peggy T is training the pilots up.
Japan needs: Frank A & R; Jack or George; Sam. You can really stop at the A6M3a till you get Sam. A late war fighter like the Ki94, Ki83, Shinden.
Depending upon HR, you need a robust night fighter program but you don't need to allocate many r&d facilities to them. 2 on Irving, 1 Nick, 1 Dinah, 2 Frances maybe one on Peggy.
Frank and Sam are the most important planes, by far. Jack or George next most important. Somewhere down the line is the Judy and Grace.
By all means build and play with all the planes you want to, but r&d the above.
I just checked the scenario editor for scenario 28 (DBB-C?).
Device ID 1855 is the Allied MAD device and it activates on 10/1/1942.
Device ID 1919 is the Japanese MAD device and it activates on 6/1/1944.
Each of the planes I mentioned, the E13A1, the B5N2 and the Ki-49-Ia all use device ID 1919.
Hey thanks for clarifying that InfiniteMonkey before I started building a squadron of Helen Ias in my DBB game. It's nice when someone checks the editor for me to prevent me from making a mistake.
You can really stop at the A6M3a till you get Sam.
I started thinking about this last night and I have to say I totally disagree. Up until the A6M5 one of the things wrong with the Zero is its frail construction. Not that the M5 is great but going to a durability of 27 from 22 is something. In addition its the fastest of all the Zeros'. Then the model after that that I want is the M5c. Its my fleet defender. With armor and a gun rating of 17 its my choice for CAP. So my CV fleet air arm will be populated with a mix of these two 'Top Guns'.
After that its the Sam, but by that time there probably won't be much of a CV fleet to go around. By the time the Sam gets into play it'll probably be no more than a nice LBA machine. Of course the above is just my .02. YMMV[;)]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
You can really stop at the A6M3a till you get Sam.
I started thinking about this last night and I have to say I totally disagree. Up until the A6M5 one of the things wrong with the Zero is its frail construction. Not that the M5 is great but going to a durability of 27 from 22 is something. In addition its the fastest of all the Zeros'. Then the model after that that I want is the M5c. Its my fleet defender. With armor and a gun rating of 17 its my choice for CAP. So my CV fleet air arm will be populated with a mix of these two 'Top Guns'.
After that its the Sam, but by that time there probably won't be much of a CV fleet to go around. By the time the Sam gets into play it'll probably be no more than a nice LBA machine. Of course the above is just my .02. YMMV[;)]
Yeah, I am kind of dubious wrt the value of the Sam for similar reasons. I just do nnot expect to have much of a carrier fleet at the time, and even if I do, I want to sue them as a CAP trap. Finally, CV groups that have been beached can be outfitted with George's or Jack's. Note in the example below the options for upgrade for Akagi-1 (Scen 1):
Yeah, I do like the Sam, but as I said it comes rather late and it would take a huge effort to advance very far. The two things that it has that make me want it in production are an SR of 2 as opposed to most A/C at the time which are 3. Its also get 4 20mm for armament. We'll see what I do when I get to the point of choice.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
I don't think the KB makes a good trap for when the Sam comes around...as the Allied bombers always get thru and the carriers burn, and burn and burn.
Sam is the essential plane after the Frank.
Think of how early you can get the Sam, if you don't put all those factories into the Zero line till the 5c and or 8 version of the A6M.
I used to think like you and Rusty until harsh experience has taught me other lessons.[;)] But every game is different!
Yeah, but can the M3a cut the mustard 'til the Sam comes along??? For me I just don't know. You could be right as I've never gotten that far into the game yet.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
I don't think the KB makes a good trap for when the Sam comes around...as the Allied bombers always get thru and the carriers burn, and burn and burn.
Sam is the essential plane after the Frank.
Think of how early you can get the Sam, if you don't put all those factories into the Zero line till the 5c and or 8 version of the A6M.
I used to think like you and Rusty until harsh experience has taught me other lessons.[;)] But every game is different!
Yeah, but can the M3a cut the mustard 'til the Sam comes along??? For me I just don't know. You could be right as I've never gotten that far into the game yet.
None of the A6 planes really do a good job in 2nd half of 43 and early 44. And in truth the Sam doesn't do a great job, but it is the best alternative.
I don't think the KB makes a good trap for when the Sam comes around...as the Allied bombers always get thru and the carriers burn, and burn and burn.
Sam is the essential plane after the Frank.
Think of how early you can get the Sam, if you don't put all those factories into the Zero line till the 5c and or 8 version of the A6M.
I used to think like you and Rusty until harsh experience has taught me other lessons.[;)] But every game is different!
+1
My experience as well. I stop with A6M3a, RnD Frank and Sam like heck. Really nothing else. Sam isn't great, but like Frank it is the best you get and that's what you want to fly.
If you're going to get the J1N1-S Irving, you may as well get the J1N1-Sa Irving which has radar from 11/44 onwards.
Minor quibble, but realistically you'll be going from Frank-a to Frank-r with the Ki-94-II being the one that should be up top. Don't forget the Ki-83: it's one of your best sweepers in the late war. You will still need to sweep from time to time to prevent your opponent from slacking off on his aerial defenses...
The N1K5 is definitely better than the N1K1. I see it as somewhat interchangeable with the N1K2 in terms of performance, but to be honest you don't get that many groups that can use IJN LBA fighters (unless you buy dead CV units back from the destroyed units list). I'm assuming your red dotted outlines mean "potentially"... in which case, you should remove the dotted outline from the A6M8 and change that box to A6M5c/A6M8. You will absolutely need one of those A6M models with armor to plug the gap before you get the A7M2 available. Timing-wise, this will be right when the Allies have begun their counteroffensive and (for me at least) a substantial time afterwards.
I've been beyond unimpressed with the Nick and Dinah night fighters. For my money, I need the Ki-102c Randy. Don't overlook the Ki-102a Randy as a FB if the 44,000 maximum altitude appeals to you. It can be very useful in combating Thunderbolt sweeps. Maybe skip it if you're not Scen 2 with the few extra factories that gives.
I find your lack of Ki-49 Helen disturbing. I know it uses a unique engine in Scen 2, but you start with those engine factories anyway... and if it's Scen 1, you're building the Tojo as well. Plus, in terms of load/lift, the Ki-49-KAI Helen transport is your best IJAAF transport (though not in terms of range) and you have it on your list, so the engine argument is void.
There's no reason to stop at the D4Y1 Judy, and IIRC the D4Y3 becomes SR1 which is invaluable. I like continuing to the D4Y4 as well - if nothing else, it's a kamikaze.
If you want to use the Okha bombs at all, you will need the respective Betty and Frances models (G4M2e and P1Y3, IIRC) - as well as the updated database from AndyMac so that they actually produce any Okhas.
Don't forget about the A6M2-N Rufe or the N1K Rex if you can see a use for float fighters (i.e., on Ise/Hyuga with their 22-plane capacities).
Lastly, if you want to be cheeky about fluffy but fun things... The M6A Seiran should be on your chart somewhere so that your "submarine aircraft carriers" have something to use. However, they don't appear to be able to use their torpedo capability from said submarines. I'm not even sure they'll fly with bombs - I've had no success yet.
" - BBfanboy
