Matrix Games Forums

Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.

Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.

Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.

Depends on how you look at it IMO. I have never tested this myself but going by what I read in that AAR going in at 1-2k means CAP will never be able to respond. If that is true and the engine can´t handle it I would deem it an exploit weather or not you use it in a mass strike with other altitudes.

Perhaps not a major issue on land but if you can get say 50 TBs right through CAP it can be a war changing event.

As I said I havn´t tested it myself so I´m only going by what I read. Its a bloody shame I can´t remember whos AAR it was. Hopefully whoever it was reads this and can give more info! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.

Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.

I agree, it's as valid a tactic as any I've used, and I've used some real scrub tactics.

At least I get radar equipped night fighters for the IJN, and the first IJA night fighters as well. Hopefully they can make a difference.

The crux of the issue for me is that the benefits of flying at 2k (increased accuracy, to the point that moonlight becomes irrelevant) far, far outweigh the costs (flak, mainly, but balloons as well).

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.

Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.

Depends on how you look at it IMO. I have never tested this myself but going by what I read in that AAR going in at 1-2k means CAP will never be able to respond. If that is true and the engine can´t handle it I would deem it an exploit weather or not you use it in a mass strike with other altitudes.

Perhaps not a major issue on land but if you can get say 50 TBs right through CAP it can be a war changing event.

As I said I havn´t tested it myself so I´m only going by what I read. Its a bloody shame I can´t remember whos AAR it was. Hopefully whoever it was reads this and can give more info! [:)]

I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that there's a lot of info about Loka's 4E groups that I don't see. Morale, fatigue ect. It could be that his pilots require copious quantities of medicinal alcohol after a night raid to deal with the fear of flying into Japanese night fighters, flak and balloons!

Mass strikes as a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they'll be my resort to breaching the late-war Allied super-carrier-CAP!

You can intercept low flying planes. Your CAP has to be low, and generally at the base attacked but not always.

With ships, I have intercepted low flying planes all time. Again you need to have low CAP.

At least that has been my experience.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.

Just to be clear I´m not saying massed strikes are an exploit. [:)]

But if the code can´t handle strikes that low I think its pretty much the definition of an exploit/bug?

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You can intercept low flying planes. Your CAP has to be low, and generally at the base attacked but not always.

With ships, I have intercepted low flying planes all time. Again you need to have low CAP.

At least that has been my experience.

That sound comforting. Might have been fixed in one of the BETAs. Not sure what version was used when I read about it so if there was an issue it may very well have been corrected. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You can intercept low flying planes. Your CAP has to be low, and generally at the base attacked but not always.

With ships, I have intercepted low flying planes all time. Again you need to have low CAP.

At least that has been my experience.

My night fighters (both dedicated NF and otherwise) have always flown at 2k. Loka always flys his bombers at 2k.

At best, I get a half-dozen passes where I'll lose a couple of NF to the 4E's defensive armament before the bombers get through.

My favorite combat reports are always the ones where I have a dozen or so NF still left in the air, I get one or two firing passes, then the good old "Air to air combat done" line in the replay screen.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Personally I avoid going as low as 2k for whatever mission. It seriously messes with the engine and detection times. No matter what CAP you have and at what altitude they are flying I´ve very, very rarely (if ever) seen the CAP able to react.

Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.

I agree, it's as valid a tactic as any I've used, and I've used some real scrub tactics.

At least I get radar equipped night fighters for the IJN, and the first IJA night fighters as well. Hopefully they can make a difference.

The crux of the issue for me is that the benefits of flying at 2k (increased accuracy, to the point that moonlight becomes irrelevant) far, far outweigh the costs (flak, mainly, but balloons as well).

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Encircled



Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.

Depends on how you look at it IMO. I have never tested this myself but going by what I read in that AAR going in at 1-2k means CAP will never be able to respond. If that is true and the engine can´t handle it I would deem it an exploit weather or not you use it in a mass strike with other altitudes.

Perhaps not a major issue on land but if you can get say 50 TBs right through CAP it can be a war changing event.

As I said I havn´t tested it myself so I´m only going by what I read. Its a bloody shame I can´t remember whos AAR it was. Hopefully whoever it was reads this and can give more info! [:)]

I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that there's a lot of info about Loka's 4E groups that I don't see. Morale, fatigue ect. It could be that his pilots require copious quantities of medicinal alcohol after a night raid to deal with the fear of flying into Japanese night fighters, flak and balloons!

Mass strikes as a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they'll be my resort to breaching the late-war Allied super-carrier-CAP!

"One of my very early addition to counter low level attacks.

The Balloon effect is determined by maximum value of (a) plus (b) below. The overall maximum of the sum is 9.
(a) Balloons are present in a base if the AF + port > 6. The value is the fort level of the hex.
(b) Balloons can be added to a base/LCU by creating a device of type BALLOON. The value is the number of devices. [not currently in use]

They affect aircraft flying below 6000'.

Twin-engine or higher planes increase the number of balloons by 4.

Balloon level is not reported but is usually the fort level if the combined value of the base is >6.
Pilot experience should help to avoid balloons (except for the bug I just found which is not always using the right pilot!!!)

< Message edited by michaelm -- 4/6/2010 4:09:22 AM >

_____________________________


Michael"

tm.asp?m=2206908&mpage=1&key=&#65533;

I exchanged a few emails with Loka on the subject of night bombing during your discussions. It's a game area where it's ridiculous to lean on history for Japan's case given how various mechanisms work in the game.

Your posts here also leave out an important piece of the negotiations, so far as I understand them. He offered a compromise to the 6000ft. proposal; you weren't interested in THAT either. It wasn't as one sided as you propose here.

Night bombing from the Allied perspective is a tool. It certainly is not cost-free or some kind of wonder weapon. Japan players see only a fraction of the downsides, however. If you want to maximize your defenses against it do not rely on NFs. Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.

+1[&o]

Petes, Alfs, Daves...work well too. Fighters with horrendous climb rates, set at 10% CAP worked well for me.

You also need AA; so it is a holistic approach. NF need lots of radar just like daytime CAP.

I saw a big improvement going from Irving S to Sa; they don't run out of ammo so fast.

What percent do your run your Irvings at?

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Encircled



Still a valid tactic as part of a mass strike at all altitudes I'd have thought.

I agree, it's as valid a tactic as any I've used, and I've used some real scrub tactics.

At least I get radar equipped night fighters for the IJN, and the first IJA night fighters as well. Hopefully they can make a difference.

The crux of the issue for me is that the benefits of flying at 2k (increased accuracy, to the point that moonlight becomes irrelevant) far, far outweigh the costs (flak, mainly, but balloons as well).

ORIGINAL: JocMeister




Depends on how you look at it IMO. I have never tested this myself but going by what I read in that AAR going in at 1-2k means CAP will never be able to respond. If that is true and the engine can´t handle it I would deem it an exploit weather or not you use it in a mass strike with other altitudes.

Perhaps not a major issue on land but if you can get say 50 TBs right through CAP it can be a war changing event.

As I said I havn´t tested it myself so I´m only going by what I read. Its a bloody shame I can´t remember whos AAR it was. Hopefully whoever it was reads this and can give more info! [:)]

I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that there's a lot of info about Loka's 4E groups that I don't see. Morale, fatigue ect. It could be that his pilots require copious quantities of medicinal alcohol after a night raid to deal with the fear of flying into Japanese night fighters, flak and balloons!

Mass strikes as a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they'll be my resort to breaching the late-war Allied super-carrier-CAP!

tm.asp?m=2206908&mpage=1&key=&#65533;

I exchanged a few emails with Loka on the subject of night bombing during your discussions. It's a game area where it's ridiculous to lean on history for Japan's case given how various mechanisms work in the game.

Your posts here also leave out an important piece of the negotiations, so far as I understand them. He offered a compromise to the 6000ft. proposal; you weren't interested in THAT either. It wasn't as one sided as you propose here.

Regarding barrage balloons: I've tested it. At night, they are nerfed to the point of being completely irrelevant.

Losses to barrage balloons during the day are reported as flak losses. At 5k, in daylight, 4E's run into them left, right and center.

At night, at 5k, is nothing in comparison. I think I had one plane reported lost due to flak - there was no flak at the base, so it was a balloon. That was out of a hundred plane raid, IIRC.

Obviously, one trial does not an experiment make, as at the time I wanted to verify that the code for balloons at night actually worked, rather than assess it's effectiveness. Even so, there was a stark difference in planes destroyed/damaged due to balloons between the day/night strikes.

I might go back and run that experiment ten times or so to see what sort of losses balloons cause at night.

RE: House Rules

There was no compromise, as I read it. The 6k limit was my proposal. Loka pointed out quite rightly that I had oversized groups and active kamikazes and there was no further mention of house rules. I can forward you the email chain or post it here if you wish.

Night bombing from the Allied perspective is a tool. It certainly is not cost-free or some kind of wonder weapon. Japan players see only a fraction of the downsides, however. If you want to maximize your defenses against it do not rely on NFs. Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.

Therein lies the crux. It's getting fighters to engage that's the real issue for night CAP. Even then, they'll get worn down due to the fragmented nature of night strikes. The first few raids might get disrupted, but the vast majority will get a good run at things.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.

+1[&o]

Petes, Alfs, Daves...work well too. Fighters with horrendous climb rates, set at 10% CAP worked well for me.

You also need AA; so it is a holistic approach. NF need lots of radar just like daytime CAP.

I saw a big improvement going from Irving S to Sa; they don't run out of ammo so fast.

What percent do your run your Irvings at?

I have everything you list marked off. AA, NF, radar. It's all there, it just doesn't seem to work together holistically.

I can't check the settings on my Irvings just now, give me a couple of hours and I'll get back to you.

tm.asp?m=3833181

I posted that thread earlier in the year. Still waiting for a response.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




I agree, it's as valid a tactic as any I've used, and I've used some real scrub tactics.

At least I get radar equipped night fighters for the IJN, and the first IJA night fighters as well. Hopefully they can make a difference.

The crux of the issue for me is that the benefits of flying at 2k (increased accuracy, to the point that moonlight becomes irrelevant) far, far outweigh the costs (flak, mainly, but balloons as well).




I wouldn't go as far as calling it an exploit. Perhaps one of the oddities in the code would be a better explanation. As I've said, the balance of benefit versus cost just seems a little off in regards to low level night bombing.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that there's a lot of info about Loka's 4E groups that I don't see. Morale, fatigue ect. It could be that his pilots require copious quantities of medicinal alcohol after a night raid to deal with the fear of flying into Japanese night fighters, flak and balloons!

Mass strikes as a perfectly valid tactic as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they'll be my resort to breaching the late-war Allied super-carrier-CAP!

tm.asp?m=2206908&mpage=1&key=&#65533;

I exchanged a few emails with Loka on the subject of night bombing during your discussions. It's a game area where it's ridiculous to lean on history for Japan's case given how various mechanisms work in the game.

Your posts here also leave out an important piece of the negotiations, so far as I understand them. He offered a compromise to the 6000ft. proposal; you weren't interested in THAT either. It wasn't as one sided as you propose here.

Regarding barrage balloons: I've tested it. At night, they are nerfed to the point of being completely irrelevant.

Losses to barrage balloons during the day are reported as flak losses. At 5k, in daylight, 4E's run into them left, right and center.

At night, at 5k, is nothing in comparison. I think I had one plane reported lost due to flak - there was no flak at the base, so it was a balloon. That was out of a hundred plane raid, IIRC.

Obviously, one trial does not an experiment make, as at the time I wanted to verify that the code for balloons at night actually worked, rather than assess it's effectiveness. Even so, there was a stark difference in planes destroyed/damaged due to balloons between the day/night strikes.

I might go back and run that experiment ten times or so to see what sort of losses balloons cause at night.

RE: House Rules

There was no compromise, as I read it. The 6k limit was my proposal. Loka pointed out quite rightly that I had oversized groups and active kamikazes and there was no further mention of house rules. I can forward you the email chain or post it here if you wish.

Night bombing from the Allied perspective is a tool. It certainly is not cost-free or some kind of wonder weapon. Japan players see only a fraction of the downsides, however. If you want to maximize your defenses against it do not rely on NFs. Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.

Therein lies the crux. It's getting fighters to engage that's the real issue for night CAP. Even then, they'll get worn down due to the fragmented nature of night strikes. The first few raids might get disrupted, but the vast majority will get a good run at things.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.

+1[&o]

Petes, Alfs, Daves...work well too. Fighters with horrendous climb rates, set at 10% CAP worked well for me.

You also need AA; so it is a holistic approach. NF need lots of radar just like daytime CAP.

I saw a big improvement going from Irving S to Sa; they don't run out of ammo so fast.

What percent do your run your Irvings at?

I have everything you list marked off. AA, NF, radar. It's all there, it just doesn't seem to work together holistically.

I can't check the settings on my Irvings just now, give me a couple of hours and I'll get back to you.

Michael makes no mention of a night/day piece to the code. I have no idea if there's a difference.

In my games losses to balloons are reported that way, not as flak. I look at balloons as chrome on a level with USN blimps. I've never not done something out of fear of balloons.

Part of the ahistoric nature of night bombing in the game is how often and well Japanese fighters find and intercept raids. No radar, no ground fighter direction, no radios even sometimes, yet we see entire CAPs stage attacks on the raids. This par tis rarely mentioned in challenges to the tactic. I can give you dozens of CRs where CAP did find me, did attack, and did disrupt aim. Also many where flak hurt or killed me at low altitudes. All against Lokasenna.

You have supersized LBA torpedo bombers. I had thought that was a counter-proposal, to break them up. You can see in the CR you posted that the Allies, who must invade and take bases to win the game, cannot survive in any sort of historical manner against multiple 80+ torpedo raids on their carriers. When you super-size you inherently avoid any coordination penalty. The Allies cannot counter this. They also have limited pools. Look at the one combat you posted and then look up how many CVEs the USN lost in the whole war. A bit ahistoric.

The game was not deeply play-tested in 1944-45. It has certain warts we all live with, the power of Japanese torpedo bombers being a primary one.

Edit: I looked back and the CR is from the KB. The emails, as I understood them, (didn't see them) concerned LBA torpedo units in the vicinity of northern NG and Rabaul.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



tm.asp?m=2206908&mpage=1&key=&#65533;

I exchanged a few emails with Loka on the subject of night bombing during your discussions. It's a game area where it's ridiculous to lean on history for Japan's case given how various mechanisms work in the game.

Your posts here also leave out an important piece of the negotiations, so far as I understand them. He offered a compromise to the 6000ft. proposal; you weren't interested in THAT either. It wasn't as one sided as you propose here.

Regarding barrage balloons: I've tested it. At night, they are nerfed to the point of being completely irrelevant.

Losses to barrage balloons during the day are reported as flak losses. At 5k, in daylight, 4E's run into them left, right and center.

At night, at 5k, is nothing in comparison. I think I had one plane reported lost due to flak - there was no flak at the base, so it was a balloon. That was out of a hundred plane raid, IIRC.

Obviously, one trial does not an experiment make, as at the time I wanted to verify that the code for balloons at night actually worked, rather than assess it's effectiveness. Even so, there was a stark difference in planes destroyed/damaged due to balloons between the day/night strikes.

I might go back and run that experiment ten times or so to see what sort of losses balloons cause at night.

RE: House Rules

There was no compromise, as I read it. The 6k limit was my proposal. Loka pointed out quite rightly that I had oversized groups and active kamikazes and there was no further mention of house rules. I can forward you the email chain or post it here if you wish.

Night bombing from the Allied perspective is a tool. It certainly is not cost-free or some kind of wonder weapon. Japan players see only a fraction of the downsides, however. If you want to maximize your defenses against it do not rely on NFs. Any fighter--Nates even--that engages ruins aim. If you focus on how many bombers you destroyed you miss the point of the defense.

Therein lies the crux. It's getting fighters to engage that's the real issue for night CAP. Even then, they'll get worn down due to the fragmented nature of night strikes. The first few raids might get disrupted, but the vast majority will get a good run at things.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe




+1[&o]

Petes, Alfs, Daves...work well too. Fighters with horrendous climb rates, set at 10% CAP worked well for me.

You also need AA; so it is a holistic approach. NF need lots of radar just like daytime CAP.

I saw a big improvement going from Irving S to Sa; they don't run out of ammo so fast.

What percent do your run your Irvings at?

I have everything you list marked off. AA, NF, radar. It's all there, it just doesn't seem to work together holistically.

I can't check the settings on my Irvings just now, give me a couple of hours and I'll get back to you.

Michael makes no mention of a night/day piece to the code. I have no idea if there's a difference.

In my games losses to balloons are reported that way, not as flak. I look at balloons as chrome on a level with USN blimps. I've never not done something out of fear of balloons.

IIRC balloon losses appear on the air losses screen as losses due to flak.

I'm currently setting up a little experiment to compare day losses to balloons versus night losses.

I'll report back shortly.

Part of the ahistoric nature of night bombing in the game is how often and well Japanese fighters find and intercept raids. No radar, no ground fighter direction, no radios even sometimes, yet we see entire CAPs stage attacks on the raids. This par tis rarely mentioned in challenges to the tactic. I can give you dozens of CRs where CAP did find me, did attack, and did disrupt aim. Also many where flak hurt or killed me at low altitudes. All against Lokasenna.

My combat reports are posted above. While some results are on the extreme side due to good co-ordination roles on Loka's part, I can say it's pretty representative of my experience with night bombing.

Then again, I don't see his side of it, so no idea on morale or fatigue.

You have supersized LBA torpedo bombers. I had thought that was a counter-proposal, to break them up. You can see in the CR you posted that the Allies, who must invade and take bases to win the game, cannot survive in any sort of historical manner against multiple 80+ torpedo raids on their carriers. When you super-size you inherently avoid any coordination penalty. The Allies cannot counter this. They also have limited pools. Look at the one combat you posted and then look up how many CVEs the USN lost in the whole war. A bit ahistoric.

Super-sizing my squadrons is my only counter to late-war Allied CAP. Lokasenna got a good demonstration in our last few turns of what happens when normal sized squadrons try to break through Allied carrier CAP. The Japanese strikes fragment, I suffer 300 odd planes lost for me, no results to show for it. At least with the supersized squadrons I'd have lost those 300 planes and perhaps torpedoed a carrier or two.

I can also tell you that supersizing does not inherently avoid the co-ordination penalty. My large squadrons have ended up without escort just like my smaller squadrons, except this time instead of a 27 sized squadron being gutted, its a 81 sized squadron.

That's not to say the supersized squadrons aren't effective: they can be. They're just not wonder weapons. And they are so incredibly cumbersome when it comes to deployment.

The game was not deeply play-tested in 1944-45. It has certain warts we all live with, the power of Japanese torpedo bombers being a primary one.

My main gripe would be large-scale air combats more than Japanese torpedo bombers. When you've a five hundred plane CAP, you need a thousand plane strike to get through it. At that point the game goes haywire.

RE: Balloons at night

I've watched through about fifty or so night bombing raids by 4E's at an empty 4 port, 5 airbase hex with level 6 forts. In daylight, plenty of messages in the replay about 4Es hitting balloons. Occasionally one will be destroyed

At night, no messages, but the bombers seem to take damage. Just damage, I've not seen any 4E's destroyed outright.

Perhaps it's a display issue?

The Allies have landed on Timor at Lautem!

Japanese air power in the region responds, sinking one USN fleet carrier and severely damaging another (and likely sinking it). Kamikaze aircraft see their second operational use, but end up focused on a TF of LST's unloading supply onto the beach.

I'm not sure what happened to Loka's CAP. Two fleet carriers and two CVL's was a woefully weak force to cover such an invasion into the keystone of my air defense network in the area. No prior airbase bombing, no preparatory bombardments, though my destroyers tangled with a crusier force that may have been on a bombardment mission and forced it to retire (although this would have closed at most one of the 4 large airbases in strike range). I suspect Loka is trying to work the DEI advance to match with his New Guinea advance. Hopefully this will slow him down some

On the ground, one Japanese division, entrenched behind level 5 forts, faces off against a brigade of New Zealanders and an Australian motorized brigade, both of which are reinforced with extra armor, artillery and AA units. A nearby Japanese division (with '43 squads) is moving 2/3rds of its strength to Lautem, and an airlift effort is being organized to move in extra troops and artillery to push the Allies back into the sea.

The KB and the bulk of the IJN is redeploying to the Lower DEI to assist in the effort to smash the Allied beachhead, in the hope that the danger of losing such a number of troops will force the Allies to commit to a carrier engagement where I can bring land based aircraft to bear. The surface units of the IJN will also set up regular bombardment runs on the Allied beachhead, and as the SLOC between Lautem and Surabaya is essentially secure, it should be much more practical to bombard than Saumlaki.

This new state of affairs will require me to essentially abandon the air war over New Guinea in order to provide enough aircraft to enable operations in the Lower DEI, but a significant number of air groups are currently resting and refitting on Guam, so it should be possible for the Japanese to resist effectively in the air over New Guinea by the end of the month.

As an aside, I really think Loka has moved too far forward without enough troops. If this had been two Marine divisions, then I'd be worried about losing Timor. Instead, he has one division's worth of Commonwealth troops that may or may not take the base. His nearest base that he can operate from is Darwin (he has Babo, but it hasn't been built up), or Taberfane and Dobo (which he can't use as I can easily bombard from Boela). At least, that's how I read it.

We will see. It will all come down to if I can hold Lautem or not. If my troops hold, we'll have another Saumlaki, but this time instead of a stalemate we'll have a good chance to wipe the Allies out. I suspect that Loka will pull his shipping back now that he has lost one fleet carrier and will likely lose another, and once the Allied naval units have withdrawn, any aircraft that can fly will hit the Allied troops on the beach.

Banzai!

Industry question:

What is the point in the game when the Japanese should start running an HI deficit in order to use their stockpiled points up before the end of the game?

I ask, as based on what I've read elsewhere (looking at you, Lowpe), I'm debating the value of starting to expand my factories to produce large numbers of my late-war airframes, mainly fighters. My thinking is that expanding now while I still have supply and safe factories might be the best option - the aircraft pool can't be bombed out.

Plane - Planned production numbers - current production numbers

A6M chain - 200 - 190 (all to be converted once A7M comes online)
N1K chain - 200- 165
J2M chain - 200 - 150
Ki-100 - 200 - 150
Ki-43 - 200 - 72
Ki-84 - 200 - 120


For those with more experiance, is 600 IJN and 600 IJA fighters a month too excessive for the late-war, or right on track?

I'm unsure at present, seeing as the first few months of '44 have been bad for Japan in terms of air losses, so I can't tell if my pools are low because of a bad run of events or because I'm not building enough...

Any advice welcome!

Expand! Run some math looking at HI and supply...Koniu had something like 450 Frank R production alone.

Industry Data as of 3/3/44

HI: 194,000 (surplus of 1463 per turn)
Supply Total: 5,524,000
Supply Total Home Islands: 3,354,000
Fuel Total Home Islands: 1,793,000
Oil Total Home Islands: 1,157,000
Resource Total Home Islands: 13,666,000

Fuel is down a bit, but that is due to the E-class escort ships undergoing upgrades. Once they're back in action the spice...er...oil and fuel...will start to flow again.

Armaments: 334,000
Vehicles: 41,000

Naval and Merchant shipyards are at 0, my production is perfectly balanced to demand at present, but I have a few carriers away in a few weeks that should free bucketloads of points up.

Questions to those that are good at the Japanese industry game:

- HI. Do I have enough?
- Armaments and Vehicles: Do I have too much?
- Supply. Do I have enough?
- My thinking is hopefully to expand production to match HI output, so that I only produce a small surplus. Is 2m HI points enough of a fallback to last through till '45?

What does plane & engine pools and production look like.