Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2026 1:55 pm**

Bo Rearguard wrote: Fri May 15, 2026 1:08 pm
btd64 wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 4:59 pm No problem. Yes, I believe it does. Remember that they can swing a little. Larger bombers have less mvr than smaller ones. Mvr and size have an affect. If I remember correctly ....GP
Going really deep into the weeds now, but does a bomber's maneuver rating improve any after it drops it's payload or is it the same either way?

This may be a bit too "deep" to be modelled in this game, even if it makes sense ofc. Also ofc bombers should have a working and fitting mvr rating. Why would a smaller, nimble and powerfull bomber treated the same like a B29 or B24 etc? The strenght of 4Es is flying in strict formation(s) anyway and not so much individual def manouvres. But lighter armed smaller bombers ofc will also try to "outfly" attacking fighters...

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2026 3:03 pm**

Alpha77 wrote: Fri May 15, 2026 1:55 pm This may be a bit too "deep" to be modelled in this game, even if it makes sense ofc. Also ofc bombers should have a working and fitting mvr rating.

Yeah, I figured maybe I was testing the limits with that question. But given the original code designer's predilection for the air game who knows what lies hidden deep in the code?

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2026 3:22 pm**

Bo Rearguard wrote: Fri May 15, 2026 1:08 pm
btd64 wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 4:59 pm No problem. Yes, I believe it does. Remember that they can swing a little. Larger bombers have less mvr than smaller ones. Mvr and size have an affect. If I remember correctly ....GP
Going really deep into the weeds now, but does a bomber's maneuver rating improve any after it drops it's payload or is it the same either way?

Good question. I don't know. On small bombers I imagine it does....GP

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2026 6:11 am**

btd64 wrote: Fri May 15, 2026 3:22 pm
Bo Rearguard wrote: Fri May 15, 2026 1:08 pm
btd64 wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 4:59 pm No problem. Yes, I believe it does. Remember that they can swing a little. Larger bombers have less mvr than smaller ones. Mvr and size have an affect. If I remember correctly ....GP
Going really deep into the weeds now, but does a bomber's maneuver rating improve any after it drops it's payload or is it the same either way?
Good question. I don't know. On small bombers I imagine it does....GP

It's a question I've been asking myself for a long time. Why do aircraft have it if it's not used, why would an LB be more maneuverthan a MB and it an HB if it isn't used.

My theory is, yes it does play a part but unless someone with access to the code comes back and says 'yes', after all that's all we need, we can only guess.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2026 12:30 am**

What explains that drastic fall in Ki 61 MVR the weight of a 2x 20mm Ho5 vs 2x 7,7mm cannot be since even it is a small percentage of weight compared to some examples that even got armored and make it much worse than a two engine fighter

Ki 45 FB two engine MVR 21 21 21 16 11

Ki 61a 24 24 24 19 14

Ki 61d 17 17 14 11 8

A Ki 44c replaced 2x7,7 by 2x12,7 and got armor but the MVR fell from 26 26 26 21 16 to 24 24 24 18 12.

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2026 9:45 am**

I did try to factor all this into my revised ratings - most fighters with more stuff lose MVR. There are exceptions, of course, when a variant has (or is assumed to have ) a more powerful variant of the same engine.

Cav

Posted: **Thu May 21, 2026 1:08 am**

Chris21wen wrote: Sat May 16, 2026 6:11 am My theory is, yes it does play a part but unless someone with access to the code comes back and says 'yes', after all that's all we need, we can only guess.

The only sobering part is Michael said back when they started this tidy up that he could not find his sizeable yellow pad of dev notes he made with all the "stuff" for how the HendersonField version was done, calculations, why, how, etc.
If memory serves, he did NOT say it was gone, just that he couldn't find it, so there may be some hope in old code regards perhaps.

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2026 4:04 am**

IJA Ki 115b and IJN Toka are different names for the same aircraft, the former has 2 service rating, the later has 1 service rating.

Other issues like apparent too good durability for a expendable aircraft and too good mvr for a crude control one.

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2026 12:02 pm**

One comes after the other. One is the Army, one is the Navy, I think. I do not have the editor open just now.

The reason for MVR and Durability to be higher is for mechanics trying to get more success with Kamis - it is not a reflection on these actual planes.

Kami attacks generally did not happen in waves; they split into individual aircraft attacks some very high but most very low- some released bombs before Kami, some did not - it's a real mixed bag. But none of it is reflected in the game. But in-game, they kami if a bomb hits.

I have played the game into August 45, and the game handles Kami poorly now that they will be a lot more dangerous, though the game will still handle them attacking in waves as it's hard-coded.

Note planes that are coded with a K can only go( HR) in training units or Kami units.

Hope this helps

BTW, there is a patch about to come out which has some tinkering with plane data. If interested, wait to see this patch. I had hoped for some more art, but the other guy is busy with his 45 game just now.

cav

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2026 4:13 am**

One comes after the other. One is the Army, one is the Navy, I think. I do not have the editor open just now

No this version appear at same time.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2026 6:14 am**

Whoever designs the scenario decides when an aircraft arrives so this is a possibility.

In Scen #1
K-115a arrives 6/45 2SR
K-115b arrives 12/45 2SR

Toka arrives 12/45 1SR

Why there's an SR difference between the 115b and Toka is anybodies guess as the stats are the same, but mine's error.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2026 9:14 am**

Yes, so that's stock, not my mod - but I get your point.

IMO it would be better for planes to have the options of many more SR.

CAV

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:37 pm**

There's an anomaly with the Allied intel screen. The Japanese can access their Aircraft/Engine production pool form this screen the Allies cannot.

: Screenshot 2026-06-04 163541.png (51.07 KiB) Viewed 576 times

It exists because you can access it via a bases Aircraft Assembly button.

: Screenshot 2026-06-04 163329.png (207.24 KiB) Viewed 576 times

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:57 pm**

Engine production is not modeled on the Allied side. The aircraft manufactured (on map) or transferred into the pools (from off-map, invisible production) simply show up with the required engines. I believe the Manpower, HI and Supply points to achieve this are taken out of the massive surplus the allies have in these factors so you don't even need to know about them - i.e. there is no limitation. Ergo there is no display required.

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2026 6:41 pm**

Furutaka/ Aoba class cruisers have more tonnage in game than the Clevelands.

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2026 8:26 pm**

Diliwitm wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2026 6:41 pm Furutaka/ Aoba class cruisers have more tonnage in game than the Clevelands.

That's a problem because tonnage is part of the durability calculation. That class should be 7-8K tons vs 10K for the Clevelands.

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2026 10:30 pm**

Cavalry Corp wrote: Mon May 11, 2026 10:01 am I might be wrong, but I believe the MVR rating of bombers has no effect in-game. However, I still put the base values in as I am not sure about it You will notice bombers are rated as 0 at all altitudes except the base level - I think that adding values in anything other than base value has no effect on gameplay, even though it should. I hope that the game used the base value and that's it.

I will examine these values you have put forward

Cav

While looking for something else in the vast archive of posts this game has generated, I came across the following
https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=207912

Highlights include:

Code: Select all

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Bombers don't use MVR for A2A combat.

And

Code: Select all

Post by michaelm75au » 28 Jul 2011, 10:05

Bomber MVR itself is used in AAA evasion.

So the conclusion seems to be only relevant for bombers with respect to avoiding AA

Posted: **Fri Jun 05, 2026 6:08 am**

BBfanboy wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:57 pm Engine production is not modeled on the Allied side. The aircraft manufactured (on map) or transferred into the pools (from off-map, invisible production) simply show up with the required engines. I believe the Manpower, HI and Supply points to achieve this are taken out of the massive surplus the allies have in these factors so you don't even need to know about them - i.e. there is no limitation. Ergo there is no display required.

I know all that and that is why I was surprised when I went somewhere I rarely go and found I could access it and why I said anomaly and not bug. Here it is.

: Screenshot 2026-06-05 070644.png (289.05 KiB) Viewed 534 times

Posted: **Fri Jun 05, 2026 12:45 pm**

Chris21wen wrote: Fri Jun 05, 2026 6:08 am
BBfanboy wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2026 3:57 pm Engine production is not modeled on the Allied side. The aircraft manufactured (on map) or transferred into the pools (from off-map, invisible production) simply show up with the required engines. I believe the Manpower, HI and Supply points to achieve this are taken out of the massive surplus the allies have in these factors so you don't even need to know about them - i.e. there is no limitation. Ergo there is no display required.
I know all that and that is why I was surprised when I went somewhere I rarely go and found I could access it and why I said anomaly and not bug. Here it is.
Screenshot 2026-06-05 070644.png

Ah, now I see what you meant - the chart shows the aircraft but not the engines even though the chart title says it is for both. Maybe it should say "engines included in the package"?

Posted: **Sat Jun 13, 2026 6:10 pm**

It uses the same menu as Japanese side and that one has the engines too.

Matrix Games Forums

New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

Re: New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!