Bill Brings Banzai

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Thread title change.

Equally good! [:D]

+$$$
You'll be hearing from my lawyer about royalties.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

We are using andymacs updated scenario 2 and the Tojo line uses Nakajima Ha-35 engines.
I have been doing the actual turn so far, not the production. Tomorrow I will really start in on the production.
So far I have looked and I have 70 R&D factories. I probably will be heavily investing in fighter R&D. I am thinking
8 x 6 size 30 R&D factories for fighters. I am not sure which ones, but I am looking at A6, A7, NiK, and J8W1 for the Navy.
Then for the Army I am looking at Ki-43, ki-44, Frank, and Ki-83. Not sure if that is enough, but it is a start. It still
leaves me with 22 more R&D factories for other things.

Comments on that?

Sounds good.

I suggest going for the Ki-43 or Ki-44, not both. Both airframes are solid early to mid game airframes that really fall off after mid 1943. I'd cut one out and put the freed up factories into the Frank.

The Zero tree also falls off a cliff big time. IMO it's worth pushing R&D for the first model with armour (IIRC the A6M5c model) and then putting everything onto the Sam.

Other airframes to consider:

Ki-45 - Good fighter-bomber for 1942 to 1943
Ki-102a - solid 2E IJA fighter with good 4E capability.
Ki-100 - Rock-steady IJA fighter that's easy to keep flying. Arrives in 1945 but can be activated much earlier with R&D chaining.

10 R&D Factories on Frank A; 10 R&D Factories on Sam. These are the two most important planes Japan gets.

For early game expansion you want the A6M3a, Oscar IIa and Tojo A.

Look at Night Fighters.

For bombers look at Judy, Jill, Grace. Everything else doesn't really matter with the exception of perhaps Peggy T and the Lilly dive bomber.

End game fighter: Scen 2 so pick one for each service: Shinden? Ki94 or Ki83? Start with 3-5 factories and enhance as other r&d concludes.

Nick is incredibly useful and you can switch almost all light bomber squadrons to it for a PP price.

Dedicated Kamikazes look interesting but probably only marginally useful.

Ask a dozen Japanese players, get 20 different opinions about air production. No right or wrong answers, IMO, just different points of view. Ain't it great? [8D]

I like to use the Tony tree to advance research on the Ki-100 line ASAP. The Tony-A/B/C/D models are 'meh'. But the Ki-100-I and II are quite good and heavily gunned. Once your research factories are fully repaired for the -A model (probably June 1942?) you can leapfrog all of them to Ki-100 right away.

The problem(s) with the Sam and Frank lines are that you cannot exploit the existing previous model research trees and you're 'stuck' with the arrival date minus any research you can get with factory repair. While they're wonderful airframes in their own right, I think I can have the Ki-100-I in abundance months before these due to the research tree exploit.

Ditto the rationale for the Ki-44-IIa research tree. I had 8 factories on this line. When all research was completed in these factories, I maintained production in three of them and moved the other five 'up the line' to the IIc (the IIb is garbage, skip it). In so doing, I can shave a full year and a half off the expected arrival time of the IIc and have it before 1943 rolls around.

Ditto Lowpe's observations about night fighters, Judy, Jill and Grace. Especially the Judy.

Disagree with the use of A6M3a. If you are comfortable using the Rufe research line to leapfrog into A6M5 production, you can have the A6M5 in late 1942. I don't feel the need for the interim A6M3a to fill the gap.

And there's also a practical balancing act re: the late-war fighter focus. Namely, do you really think you'll be playing this game into 1945-1946? Sure, it's possible, but it's a rarity. When so many games end before 1943, do you want your production / research in 1943 to be predicated on that which you are unlikely to ever see in your game? Will you be wanting for mid-war fighters because of an excessively far-sighted research plan?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

We are using andymacs updated scenario 2 and the Tojo line uses Nakajima Ha-35 engines.
I have been doing the actual turn so far, not the production. Tomorrow I will really start in on the production.
So far I have looked and I have 70 R&D factories. I probably will be heavily investing in fighter R&D. I am thinking
8 x 6 size 30 R&D factories for fighters. I am not sure which ones, but I am looking at A6, A7, NiK, and J8W1 for the Navy.
Then for the Army I am looking at Ki-43, ki-44, Frank, and Ki-83. Not sure if that is enough, but it is a start. It still
leaves me with 22 more R&D factories for other things.

Comments on that?

Sounds good.

I suggest going for the Ki-43 or Ki-44, not both. Both airframes are solid early to mid game airframes that really fall off after mid 1943. I'd cut one out and put the freed up factories into the Frank.

The Zero tree also falls off a cliff big time. IMO it's worth pushing R&D for the first model with armour (IIRC the A6M5c model) and then putting everything onto the Sam.

Other airframes to consider:

Ki-45 - Good fighter-bomber for 1942 to 1943
Ki-102a - solid 2E IJA fighter with good 4E capability.
Ki-100 - Rock-steady IJA fighter that's easy to keep flying. Arrives in 1945 but can be activated much earlier with R&D chaining.

10 R&D Factories on Frank A; 10 R&D Factories on Sam. These are the two most important planes Japan gets.

For early game expansion you want the A6M3a, Oscar IIa and Tojo A.

Look at Night Fighters.

For bombers look at Judy, Jill, Grace. Everything else doesn't really matter with the exception of perhaps Peggy T and the Lilly dive bomber.

End game fighter: Scen 2 so pick one for each service: Shinden? Ki94 or Ki83? Start with 3-5 factories and enhance as other r&d concludes.

Nick is incredibly useful and you can switch almost all light bomber squadrons to it for a PP price.

Dedicated Kamikazes look interesting but probably only marginally useful.

I would add Frances to that list as well. A massive improvement over the Betty/Nell in terms of performance.

I'll agitate for the Pasty bomber as well here, but that's a late-late game toy.

[jwolf]

ROFL on the new title!! [:D] Good luck as the two of you slug it out in the Pacific.

[BillBrown]

another question, I thought I had a link to a thread, but I can not find it now.

About how long does it take to fully repair a size 30 aircraft R&D factorie? The number that sticks in my
old head is about 2/3 of the time from the start to the normal availability date.

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Thread title change.

So a question here, how many Frank R&D factories are recomended? I thought about 6 size 30( there is one that starts at 55 ). Should I have more?

Bill: With non-historical R&D capabilities, you can really accelerate some mid-late model airframes. Maybe even moreso than you are comfortable. For example, would you feel 'comfortable' from a realism perspective bringing late 1944-early 1945 airframes into early 1943 or would such a leapfrog in technology rub you the wrong way? Would you feel comfortable using the 'exploits' of the research tree to accomplish such things or do you have a bent to consider?

If you're an 'anything goes' sort of guy, this does have a bearing on your research commitments and numbers of research factories to use on these airframe and engine paths. But we need to know how you feel philosophically about this moving forward before recommending anything hard and fast.

This is an interesting post. It made me think a lot. The game is a no house rules game so there are no HRs to worry about.
As far as my play style, I would say pretty much anything goes is probably where I am. However, I really do not want to do something that will offend either my readers or more importantly my opponent. I am not entirely comfortable with advancing air frames that much. I will still have to think on it some more. I would like to hear from others bout this, just to get a feel for what the community thinks.

[Canoerebel]

You're just getting underway, but how do you find this so far? Challenging? Invigorating? Fun? Tedious? Enervating? Eviscerating? Emasculating?

[Simonsez]

Not an expert on the Japanese R&D tree, but from the perspective of "what if", I would go full tilt into the oppotunity to run the Japanese economy within the game engine contraints. Historically, the Japanese were hamstrung by many factors including political, economic and philosophic. As players we cannot ever accurately play this game historically becuase we know the history, we know what happened, we know how to use the tools within the game to push RNG Jesus in our favor in almost every aspect of the game. IMHO, non of that is any different from taking the R&D to it's logical, max conclusion. Mainlining the Japanese industry to advance aircraft is simply an exercise in replacing historical factors with a few of your own that "allow" you (as the leader) to say, hey it would be better if we produced more capable aircraft to further our war goals.

We all know the Allies won the war. Pushing Japan as far as the game engine allows (assuming your opponent has not set any constraints) provides the exercise for seeing what might have been possible.

[BillBrown]

All the above? It certainly is challenging, fun - maybe not so much now, I am sure once I get through turn 1 it will be a lot more fun, tedious yes, I am enervated at times - I have to just walk away for a bit, evicerated - not really, emasculated - not since I left my last bag in Albuquerque years ago.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
...emasculated - not since I left my last bag in Albuquerque years ago.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but one possibility has me puckering. We need a puckering emogee.

[BillBrown]

Thank you for that Admiral Ackbar.

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
...emasculated - not since I left my last bag in Albuquerque years ago.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but one possibility has me puckering. We need a puckering emogee.

My last ex, she was a real bag. [:D]

[Canoerebel]

Oh, I thought you were using "emasculate" in the literal way..... [X(] [:-]

That gives "left my last bag in Albuquerque" an entirely different meaning.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Thread title change.

So a question here, how many Frank R&D factories are recomended? I thought about 6 size 30( there is one that starts at 55 ). Should I have more?

Bill: With non-historical R&D capabilities, you can really accelerate some mid-late model airframes. Maybe even moreso than you are comfortable. For example, would you feel 'comfortable' from a realism perspective bringing late 1944-early 1945 airframes into early 1943 or would such a leapfrog in technology rub you the wrong way? Would you feel comfortable using the 'exploits' of the research tree to accomplish such things or do you have a bent to consider?

If you're an 'anything goes' sort of guy, this does have a bearing on your research commitments and numbers of research factories to use on these airframe and engine paths. But we need to know how you feel philosophically about this moving forward before recommending anything hard and fast.

This is an interesting post. It made me think a lot. The game is a no house rules game so there are no HRs to worry about.
As far as my play style, I would say pretty much anything goes is probably where I am. However, I really do not want to do something that will offend either my readers or more importantly my opponent. I am not entirely comfortable with advancing air frames that much. I will still have to think on it some more. I would like to hear from others bout this, just to get a feel for what the community thinks.

My opinion is that *you* should suss what sort of sense of fairness / realism you think an appropriate fit for the game for your style of play. Knowing that you can go as far as you like from one end of the spectrum (PDU Off, realistic R&D ON, etc.) to the other (PDU On, realistic R&D off, use of engine production bonus, use of leapfrogging research tree bonus) and everywhere in between. The Japanese side has much more flexibility with the myriad choices available to you. You can be as stringent or lackadaisical in adhering to a sense of your inner voice of reason & fairness as you choose.

Making that stand-and how you rationalize making that stand-is half the fun of playing the Japanese side. [8D]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Thread title change.

So a question here, how many Frank R&D factories are recomended? I thought about 6 size 30( there is one that starts at 55 ). Should I have more?

I did 1x55 and 8x30. Worked well for me. I'll get the Frank r in Feb 44. I pulled out the 55 and 2x30 for operational use when the Frank a became operational and kept the others for the r R&D.

[Mike Solli]

Here's my take on fighters:

IJA

Pull out the Nate as soon as possible. I built up my Oscar production to 120. In hindsight, 90 would have been sufficient.

Oscar is necessary until you get the Tojo II. I LOVE the Tojo II. It was relevant until late 43, when I stopped production. I still have a couple hundred and will use them in backwater areas (Burma primarily). I would say China, but the China war is just about over, otherwise there too.

I built the Tony II, the same way CB described and got them early. The look great on paper, but never lived up to their hype for me. Don't think I'll bother next time.

Frank a is brutal on the Allies. Can't wait for the r!

I'm not producing any Oscars but am doing R&D to finish out the line, just to have them available. Their range is nice, but they get eaten alive. Possible Kamikazes later but only if I decide to convert a fighter to Kamikazes. At this point (Jan 44) that's not something I'm considering doing.

IJN

I built some Zero 3a, for their range. I won't bother this time. Carrier battles are brutal, but short. One side usually gets ravaged and withdraws (or sinks) or neither side is willing to go all in and both sides withdraw with light damage. Either way, they're usually short. So, given that (yeah, people are going to disagree with that assessment), the M5c with tanks works great. That's my goal. Armor is key to keeping your pilots healthy or WIA, as opposed to KIA. As the war progresses, there are more battles over your bases, so your pilot losses go down proportionally. (They go up, but only because the number of planes in battle increases. I believe the % losses is lower with airframe armor over your territory. Again, people will argue this. Just my opinion.)

The Sam is key. I screwed up with my Sam R&D so I don't know when they'll come. I currently have 12 Sam R&D factories.

[Mike Solli]

One last thing. The planes are worthless without good pilots. Here's my MINIMUMS for various pilots.

Exp/Air/Def

IJA: 50/70/70 - Note that in my 1944 game, the front line pilots minimums are 70/70/70.

IJN CV based: 70/70/70
IJN Land based: 50/70/70

I cull the 70 exp pilots from the land based units for KB. The training units' goal is 50/70/70 for the land based front line units. The land based front line units are the "training units" for KB.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Thread title change.

So a question here, how many Frank R&D factories are recomended? I thought about 6 size 30( there is one that starts at 55 ). Should I have more?

I think I have 8 or 9 on the Frank-a model. If you haven't negotiated the Frank 'lineage', beware. The Frank goes from the -A to the -R model. Frank-B is a totally different stand-alone plane for research and production purposes.

Nobody has mentioned the George line. The best IJNAF bomber killer you'll see before 1945. Must do.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Nobody has mentioned the George line. The best IJNAF bomber killer you'll see before 1945. Must do.

How did I forget that?! Yep, the George is great. I currently use the George 2 and get the 5 in May 44. Can't wait!

I started with 12 R&D factories and kept 9 when the George 1 came online. My issue with the George 5 is the Ha-43 engine. It won't be operational until May 44 as well. [8|]

[jdsrae]

I’m trying to train my pilots to the 50/70/70 targets but getting the last bit from 65-70 is a struggle.
I’ve generally swapped out squadron commanders who are pilots, especially if their leadership and air skills are poor.
Do people overfill their training squadron with pilots or is it better to just post the same number of trainees to match the number of planes so they have a higher chance of flying/training every day?