Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Can anyone explain the difference between these guns, especially mid to late war vs. bombers?

I'm reviewing my R&D strategy and comparing planes. Many 43/44 fighters have these 37mm, 40mm, 57mm cannons, but their very very inaccurate vs. the 20mm cannons which though less penetration have greater chance to hit and are more common with fighters until 45. How worth it are these devices?

The Accuracy field in the game is a combination of accuracy is a combination of accuracy plus rate of fire (true for both aircraft weapons and other weapons except aircraft ordnance like bombs, AFAIK). Higher is better. Range, Effect, Penetration all are higher is better also, as are Anti-Armor and Anti-Soft (against ground targets IIRC).

Is that what you're looking for?

How effective are they in air-to-air? I'm hearing mixed reviews from some of the JP air frames and I'm wondering if this it the reason. I'm not sure if planes with these types of armaments are worth building, or if they need to built in mass numbers to be effective. Granted they have great penetration, but so what if they can't hit anything.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Singapore - no need to rush in there since he cannot get anything else there. If you go in with just two divisions, the combat results will not be in your favor. Wait until you have four. For now, just bomb the AF so he cannot build forts.

I'll wait for the 4 divs, but I'm getting impatient again. I have plans for these guys. I'm starting to seriously consider an Alaska/Canada invasion with the goals of building airfields and smashing industry in Seattle. Secondary goals would be invasions further south with the goals of hitting SF.

I've been looking at the axis of attack. Alaska is actually fairly close to Japan. Numerous bases to protect supply lines. I'm wondering why it hasn't been done much if at all.

I'd shift the 25th army for that. Plus this scenario provides an extra brigade and assault div (3 Nav guards combined). Wake could support this. The KB will rule (unless some disaster happens) for quite a while into 42 to support.

So Pac would be limited, mostly under cover of LBA.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

How effective are they in air-to-air? I'm hearing mixed reviews from some of the JP air frames and I'm wondering if this it the reason. I'm not sure if planes with these types of armaments are worth building, or if they need to built in mass numbers to be effective. Granted they have great penetration, but so what if they can't hit anything.

Looking at those accuracy numbers compared to .50 cal - how often would they hit: once per century? Seems like range and penetration are their good points. I haven't heard anyone's opinion of them from in-game use.

ORIGINAL: vicberg

How effective are they in air-to-air? I'm hearing mixed reviews from some of the JP air frames and I'm wondering if this it the reason. I'm not sure if planes with these types of armaments are worth building, or if they need to built in mass numbers to be effective. Granted they have great penetration, but so what if they can't hit anything.

No. Not worth it. Tojo IIb. Bypass.

What else are you considering that uses these mid-war?

Think Tojo IIc. George. Jack. Oscar IIIa. Frank. A6M5b.

The George is gone in this scenario. Lost to navy considerations. I believe replaced with this new Navy model.

I have to figure out something to do with the Army.

Sorting through this, does the game engine model a cannon vs. fighter vs. a cannon vs. bomber. Is it easy to hit a bomber with a cannon than a fighter or is ALL of it taken into account by maneuver, accuracy? I'm going to assume maneuver/accuracy, so a cannon can be as effective vs. a fighter as a bomber. The B-29 only has an armor of 1, so I'm also going to assume that a 20 cannon with penetration of 4 can be effective vs. it. Not knowing 100% of this game engine, I'm figuring that after a hit is achieved the durability comes into play in order to keep the plane flying, which is why the B-29 is such a challenge with a durability of 70!

So I'm going under the assuming that I need accuracy/penetration in order to keep his mid-late war fighters/bombers at bay, since all of the mid/late war allied fighters are armored.

Fighters
- Oscar is useless across the board. Though it has range, I can't see a use for it, under gunned and unarmored.
- Tony looks to be the 43 fighter by design (with PDU on, I can change that), though first version is under gunned, poor range and poor service rating limits it's usability. The Tony 1D (1/44) has improved range, a combo of cannon and MG, so useful against bombers and an improved service rating of 2. That's one to note.
- Tojo I and IIa are good for 42, the IIa has improved range. The IIb is useless due to those terrible guns. The IIc (2/44) looks interesting as a pure dog fighter, which the equivalent of browning MG, armor, service rating of 1, durability, etc...I'm going to think about rushing that plane.
- Frank is the defacto 44 airplane, but again a service rating of 3 limits usability. None of the Franks compare to the Tony 1D, so I'm not sure why to even build them.
- KI-93 and KI-94 both have terrible service ratings and useless guns.
- The KI-100 Tony series are both late 44 planes. Both look to be the best the Japanese can offer in the game. I'll need to rush the first version
- I'm not going to worry about the Jets. If the game looks to be going into 46, I can rush them.

Night Fighters
All the Japanese night fighters have at least one of the inaccurate guns, little to choose from.

- KI-45 KAId Nick (8/43) has 2x20mm, decent service range, so that's going to have to be the one to choose.
- The KI-102c Randy (9/45) will need to be rushed I'm thinking. It has 2x20mm and 2x30mm (15% chance to hit) but has radar. Great durability.

Summary
The Tony 1d, KI-100 Tony, KIAd Nick, KI-102c Randy look to be the best the Japanese can offer on the Army side for fighter and night fighter.

There's 230 (approx) to play with in total Fighter, Fighter Bomber (useless) and Night Fighter R&D including both Army and Navy without expanding HI cost. I'm not sure what the cost is for each R&D point, but I'm assuming 18. So I'm planning on expanding 4 factories for these fighters to 30 each.

I'll post again on Navy fighter review. I have 4 to play with there.

Thoughts?

Navy Fighters

Fighters
- A6M3 seems to be a step down. Higher climb rate and altitude but shorter range, which is all important in these carrier battles.
- A6M4 and A64M-J are both new to this scenario. Both armored. Neither are CV capable. The A6M4 (1/43) has a service rating of 2. The A6M4-J (7/43) has a service rating of 1, spits out 4x20mm Cannon. That's a must.
- A65M2b (3/43) is a must. There 2 of 4 Navy fighter/night fighter R&D taken.
- A68M (8/43) is nice. Armored but shorter range.
- A7M3-J is tempting. Gun value of 30. Unfortunately 6 x 30mm which are 15% accurate and a service rating of 3.
- I was wrong, the George is in the game - N1K4-A George (4/45) looks to be the best. 6x20mm, gun value 22, armored, good range, CV capable. What's not to like. this will be my 4th. Useful on land and CV.

Night Fighters
- Mryt, Irving, Judy are all crap. Undergunned.
- Frances has some firepower plus radar. This will be my choice.
- Denko (1/46) looks like a beast. But I'm not counting on 46.

Again, any thoughts about this are appreciated.

Level Bombers

There's 105 R&D, that's 3 factories at 30 with a small savings.

There's only 2 Level Bombers for Navy and 1 bomber for Army that I can see worthwhile.

Helen IIa for Army, the Nell G3M3 (which has radar) and comes in 5/42! The Betty G4M3a which also sports radar and is armored but comes in 6/44.

There's a Nell -Q variant that has MAD, which I assume is anti-sub.

So my thoughts on R&D are
- G4M3a Betty
- G3M3-Q Nell

The G3M3 comes in 5/42, I see no need to rush this. This frees up 50 points of R&D which can be used elsewhere.

Dive Bombers
There's 20 points of R&D into this.

- Early versions of the Judy, though sporting 500kg bombs, have a service rating of 3. That's not good. They come in late 42, so I'm not going to rush them
- The Judy D4Y3 comes in 5/44. I think that's going to be the rush. Service rating returns to a 1.
- The Grace has a service version of 2, 10 range, but is now a torpedo bomber instead of a dive bomber. That's strange. I think I'll bypass that one.

Torpedo Bombers
15 points already in there.


The B6N2 Jill is the obvious choice here. Comes in late 43. Range, service rating, etc...

Everything Else
Everything else, I'm going to shut off or convert over to the above and let them come in historical. Transports, recon, float planes are fine as is. The pitiful Japanese economy has to be focused to have any chance.

There's a current total of 440 R&D including everything. I have 390 R&D if I expand the 13 factories to 30. That's a saving of 50 R&D per turn. Because we are doing historical R&D, I'll keep some of these R&D around non-producing to switch over to something else depending on how the economy goes and how the war goes.

Sorting through this, does the game engine model a cannon vs. fighter vs. a cannon vs. bomber. Is it easy to hit a bomber with a cannon than a fighter or is ALL of it taken into account by maneuver, accuracy? I'm going to assume maneuver/accuracy, so a cannon can be as effective vs. a fighter as a bomber.

Don't know these answers. Developers have implied differences in how fighters and non-fighters are handled, but that's about the limit of what I know on it.

The A6M2 Zero out of the gate has 2x20mm cannons. They seem to do well through 42 and are decent against B-17s. So I've got to figure that 20mm Cannons are decent vs. fighters. The P-47, which all Japanese players fear, has only the Browning .50 MG, but 8 of them. Why I may need to include the Tojo IIc on the rush list at it has at least 4 of the equivalent MGs. Still way under gunned vs. the P-47, but what isn't.

Allied players don't need to worry about this. They have little control as it is and their planes improve during the war. The Japanese have many air frames that are just worthless, especially late war. Then you get the Army vs. Navy R&D and it's really all over the map and a real challenge to wade through. This is the first time I've actually started looking at devices. It's revealing.

It's a "what were they thinking" type of R&D strategy. I see so many posts in AARs about "does this plane do well? How about this one/" from Japanese players. I can understand why.

Unless I hear feedback about something I'm missing, this will be the build list

Fighters/Night Fighters
- Tony 1d
- KI-100 Tony
- KIAd Nick (NF)
- KI-102c Randy (NF)
- A6M4-J
- A6M5b
- N1K4-A George
- P1Y2-S Frances (NF)

Bombers
- G4M3a Betty
- G3M3-Q Nell
- Helen IIa
- D4Y3 Judy
- B6N2 Jill

The Tojo IIc is still under consideration as I'm 50 R&D under what the economy starts with. Everything else shut off or converted to the above. A few R&D factories (5-10) left but not producing so I can rush something else in the future. I need to get my economy stable first.

Looking at the data I think it is safe to say the following:

- Accuracy determines the chance to hit (vs any target). In general cannon have fairly low accuracy. General rule of thumb - the higher the caliber, the lower the hit chance
- Centerline weapons have a higher chance to hit then forward mounted weapons
- All other things being equal (experience) fighters are harder to hit then bombers
- bombers can fire in defense and are normally more durable then fighters

Based on experience, the following

- Cannon kill (heavy) bombers (20mm)
- More cannon, more bombers destroyed and / or written off
- Cannon and heavy mg (.50 cal) kill fighters and medium bombers

Light, medium and carrier based bombers caught by a decent - stacked- CAP (heavy MG / cannon mix) without escort will suffer severe losses
Heavy bombers caught by a decent -stacked- CAP (heavy MG / cannon mix) might suffer losses depending on frame fatigue and raid size

Having a base full off service rating 3 fighters (with good speed, cannon and pilots) will guarantee you one and one only good CAP day. After that, results will drop sharply due to damaged frames not being repaired fast enough. Tip of the day for sustained defense. Mix cannon fighters, fast fighters, easy to maintain fighters and manoeuvrable fighters and stack them at several altitudes. There is no wonder weapon, only combined arms principals for air combat....

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Unless I hear feedback about something I'm missing, this will be the build list

Fighters/Night Fighters
- Tony 1d
- KI-100 Tony
- KIAd Nick (NF)
- KI-102c Randy (NF)
- A6M4-J
- A6M5b
- N1K4-A George
- P1Y2-S Frances (NF)

Bombers
- G4M3a Betty
- G3M3-Q Nell
- Helen IIa
- D4Y3 Judy
- B6N2 Jill

The Tojo IIc is still under consideration as I'm 50 R&D under what the economy starts with. Everything else shut off or converted to the above. A few R&D factories (5-10) left but not producing so I can rush something else in the future. I need to get my economy stable first.

Where is the Frank? Also, the Tojo is a no-brainer until you get better, easy to maintain aircraft. It is not a miracle plane but it gets the job done at medium altitudes... Remember that quantity is a quality all on its own....

I´ve got an excel file to help me make choices. Currently it is developed for fighters, but you could easily convert it for bomber use... If you pm me your email I´ll forward a copy...

Frances is better than the G4M3a - which is a nice bomber, but Frances is better. Yes the SR is higher, but the speed differential is important late war.

Grace is the best Japanese bomber in the game, don't leave home without it.

The first Judy makes for a good kamikaze, and you will need thousands of kamikazes. Plus you are handicapping your carriers if you wait for the 3rd model.

In downfall testing for night fighters Myrt performs well, very well. You will probably kick your self for not getting Iriving faster as it is the first available night fighter. Frances is a good choice but expensive in two engines, but there is a lot to like. The Randy NF radar doesn't activate until very late in 45.

Oscars make great escort fodder. Also a good kamikaze for below CA sized ships.

Hard to believe Frank isn't better than the Tony.[&:]

While looking at your post about R&D, I assume you are making use of lines of aircraft to speed up research of later models? For example, when you convert the Tojo IIA to IIB while still R&Ding you won't have to repair the factories for the IIB... See screenshot..

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

While looking at your post about R&D, I assume you are making use of lines of aircraft to speed up research of later models? For example, when you convert the Tojo IIA to IIB while still R&Ding you won't have to repair the factories for the IIB... See screenshot..

I'm back to the drawing board again. I was going to just go straight after best of breed, and shut the rest off, but it sounds like it worth even small R&D within an aircraft line just to avoid the repairs and it sounds like there's no such thing as best of breed or one stop shopping.

I haven't posted much because there's not much to post.

Here's my current Fighter R&D. Much of this was at start for the module and I haven't changed it yet. My overall R&D is less than at start so I have some room to upgrade. The A6M4 and A6M4-J are both new for the mod. Looks like the Nick is out of this game. One model was scrapped.

January 1st, 1942.

Northern China

Trying the end around. What's interesting is that his Chinese troops can move as fast as my Armor, so he's done a good job of slowing them up. Plus the AI started moving the large group of regiments off road and I didn't realize it. That's been corrected.

Central China

The 1st Army is about to break through along the road. Two attacks at 1-2 and 1-3 odds caused more damaged and I received. They are resting right now for hopefully a decisive attack.

He moved the AVG into Sian, which was smart and bagged a few Sonia/Idas with replacement pilots, but didn't set any cap. So I was able to do the following. I've set the bombers to stand down and will do a couple of sweeps to see if he corrects his mistake.

The 3 central cities fell, Chengchow, Loyang and Nanyang. What makes China more challenging is that Garrisons have been increased, so most of the 12th and 13th Armies are currently doing garrison duty.

He is being smart pulling back to better defensive terrian.

Morning Air attack on Sian , at 83,41

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 21
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 28

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 7 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 13

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Sian , at 83,41

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-Ic Sally x 14

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-Ic Sally: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 7 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 9

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x Ki-21-Ic Sally bombing from 6000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb