Matrix Games Forums

Anyone know which IJAAF units upgrade to the G5N Liz? I don't see it as an option with PDU on.

Chez

G1/Takao Daitai
G2/Takao Daitai

tm.asp?m=1266732
tm.asp?m=876062

Unless a unit points to it as an upgrade, or unless a CURRENT JAAF unit uses it, it won't appear as an option.
The code tries to limit you to types of the same service - and G5N should appear in the naval units -
if "should" is the right term for a plane that never served at all in the bomber role.

ORIGINAL: VSWG

G1/Takao Daitai
G2/Takao Daitai

tm.asp?m=1266732
tm.asp?m=876062

Thanks... I was looking at IJAAF units forgetting its a Navy bomber.

Chez

Unsuccessful in its intended role, the G5N1 never served at all other than as a test bed. The plane was complex and expensive - and the competition for big engines too fierce: none of the several engines tried were ever going to be powerful enough. [1800 hp does not work? Lets try 1650! Brilliant.] Four of the aircraft eventually were modified with a very reliable engine so they could serve as G5N2-L transports (the L modifying the G to mean transport - the G meaning it was originally a bomber design series.] After extensive working with the Me-264 - and looking hard at many other 4 engine bombers - especially the Fw-200 Condor - which was modified into a maritime bomber at JNAF expense - we decided that if there were to be a 4 engine bomber in the period - the best solution would be to use this same G5N design - but to allocate to it adequate engines. Our fictional G5N3 is really just a G5N1 with Ki-21 II engines. Later - after more powerful engines become available - we create a G5N4 using them - and the missile developed for the Condor. These planes are only found in the EOS family of RHS. The Me-264 may still be in Empires Ablaze, but it isn't in EOS any more. The G5N1 is only found in CHS. I guess that is the opposite trade off: you get the original underpowered plane - so you have to live with its performance. Yet another option exists: be historical - decide it isn't worth the cost. Two Betty's are worth more than one G5N - any flavor - and they go farther - and deliver two torpedoes - or 6 x 250 kg bombs (between them). They also are harder to kill than one plane is.

Two Betty's are worth more than one G5N - any flavor - and they go farther - and deliver two torpedoes - or 6 x 250 kg bombs (between them). They also are harder to kill than one plane is.

Not in this case... 2 Bettys were far less likely to survive than a single G5N. Being based on the Douglas DC-4, it was much more robust and had increased survivablity features (armor, SS tanks, better defensive armament, etc...) incorporated in the initial design. Unfortunately, these features greatly increased its weight and the engines were underpowered.

By the time better engines were avialable, the Navy could no longer afford the amount of strategic materials required for the project so it was shelved. In many ways, it parallaled the initial development of Project 299, the XB-17 except that the US could afford the time and expense required to iron out the problems.

Chez

I don't know how we can rate "durability" of aircraft IRL? [Wish I did - it would be useful]

But I was speaking in game terms and in theoretical terms. Anti-air warfare being my specialty.

In general, it is much harder to shoot down two aircraft than one aircraft, regardless of the durability involved.

In fact - and this is neither well known nor popular among gamers - air combat is almost never a contest.
The vast majority of the time - 90% or so in all eras from WWI to the present - the guy who loses never knew
he was under attack. Initiative - first detection - is the critical thing: the guy who sees the other guy first can
elect to bug out (in pilot talk) or to engage. If the latter, he has the option to try to be sneaky - and wise pilots
do that.

The only advantage a G5N has over a G4 is it has a larger crew. But when comparing two G4s and one G5,
this is not so clear: nor is being in two different places a bad thing - detection wise. It means the chances of first
detection probably are nearly equal - or favor the two G4s. So as far as what would really matter 9 times in 10,
initiative - first detection - whatever the chances of a Japanese bomber would be in a given situation - the G5 is
not better than a pair of G4s - and may well be not quite as good.

For the other 1 time in 10 - we don't want to evade - or he spots us and does not want to evade combat -
it is still much harder to shoot down two different aircraft. Indeed, if there is but a single enemy, a pair of planes can split
up - and he cannot go for both. Here the G5 does have more durability - and better defensive armament -
but not twice as much durability (and RHS rates for structure, no of engines, no of pilots, - structure in two ways - type
and sheer mass) - and it depends on the opposition if either has sufficient defensive armament.

For bombing - you cannot evade being detected then - two targets are always harder than one. Period. You must solve the
fire control problem twice to take down two. Almost any good hit will kill or abort the plane - if far enough away. The chances
of two solutions in a run in are far less than one. Here two bombers is a really good idea.

In analysis terms there is also cost = the G5 costs about as much as 2 G4s do in game terms - and IRL. It is exactly twice
as many engines per each - and remarkably close to the same amount of aluminum. But the single G5 would take much
more labor - about two months more - and more production area - so it is about 3 times as expensive in factory space or labor
terms. If you did a cost benefit analysis, it must favor the G4 choice.

None of which binds you - it is all just FYI - and I like player options. Else I would not have put so many of them in.














5