Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:41 pm
Is there any reason not to switch Topsy II production to the Helen Tr when it becomes available, it carries more, is armoured and faster but does have a slightly shorter range.
Page 1 of 1
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:15 pm
I use the Hellen and like it. It seems durable, maybe due to the armor, compared with earlier transports. The IJN transports are very long-legged, and I still have a lot of Thalia around which was my 1st gen transport for long range moves.
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:18 pm
The only issue is that they use the same engine as the combat versions. So if you have enough engines to support them, then they are really good.
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:42 pm
Issue is only the opportunity cost... as Numdydar said, these engines might be more useful for combat planes
I have never put priority to TRA planes... I will try to build as few as possible, and use all obsolete airframes until I run out. Even "Theresa" is useful as Manchukuo trainer.
I hope to keep Topsy-I, Thalias, Sallys for as long as I can .. then move to the plane that uses the engine with the greater surplus
One exception: Emily float transport: I might switch to it as soon as possible, simply because each can carry almost 4 times more than a Mavis TRA
I have never put priority to TRA planes... I will try to build as few as possible, and use all obsolete airframes until I run out. Even "Theresa" is useful as Manchukuo trainer.
I hope to keep Topsy-I, Thalias, Sallys for as long as I can .. then move to the plane that uses the engine with the greater surplus
One exception: Emily float transport: I might switch to it as soon as possible, simply because each can carry almost 4 times more than a Mavis TRA
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:57 pm
ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
Issue is only the opportunity cost... as Numdydar said, these engines might be more useful for combat planes
I have never put priority to TRA planes... I will try to build as few as possible, and use all obsolete airframes until I run out. Even "Theresa" is useful as Manchukuo trainer.
I hope to keep Topsy-I, Thalias, Sallys for as long as I can .. then move to the plane that uses the engine with the greater surplus
One exception: Emily float transport: I might switch to it as soon as possible, simply because each can carry almost 4 times more than a Mavis TRA
Invest in the Tabby. It's worth it.
Depends on your game, but I've found transport can save your tush a fair few times
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:51 pm
Invest in the Tabby. It's worth it.
I must be missing something (Scen 1 player only), Emily L has longer range, bigger load and comes before Tabby. Both are IJN transport. What advantage of Tabby over Emily besides engine usage?
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:09 pm
Edit - Just answered a question that you didn't ask. To answer the one that you did ask, I'd assume the ability to use the Tabby from any base, not just a port base. That said, I agree that you have enough land-based groups that the Emily is pretty worthwhile, even if you won't ever have many groups that can use them.
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:15 pm
Right! and thanks! Obviously TRA ranks low on my list. Been monitoring fighter upgrades but not tra squadron closely 
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:15 am
Emily-L is float transport and therefore competes against Mavis-L (not against any land based Navy transports like the Tabby)
there are significantly more land based squadrons, so it makes sense to have both Tabby and Emily-L.
Only issue with Tabby is that it comes too late
there are significantly more land based squadrons, so it makes sense to have both Tabby and Emily-L.
Only issue with Tabby is that it comes too late
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:46 am
ORIGINAL: obvert
Invest in the Tabby. It's worth it.
Tabby is IJNAF only. And transport flying boats are much superior.
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:58 am
ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
Issue is only the opportunity cost... as Numdydar said, these engines might be more useful for combat planes
That would depend on what else you are building, it may make just as much sense to use the engines for transports as you already have factories churning out the right engines. Then the engine factories that were building powerplants for Topsy etc can be switched to other production.
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:25 pm
ORIGINAL: FatR
ORIGINAL: obvert
Invest in the Tabby. It's worth it.
Tabby is IJNAF only. And transport flying boats are much superior.
Tabby is 2E, thus much cheaper and easy to manage than a 4E Emily in game if you're not flying from big bases with lots of support. Anything inland also needs something with wheels.
I love the Emilys. They've saved quite a few stranded units, but the Tabby is sturdy, flies a full group every day and carries a good load a long way (up to 17 hexes between your own bases). Make what you want, but I certainly am happy I set up one 30 sized research factory for this, got it a few months ahead, and have both of these types flying.
RE: Ki-49-II KAI Helen
Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 1:34 pm
He is saying that Tabby is navy plane and if the player respect the branch separation IJNAF vs IJA and only uses navy planes to supply navy units, a navy base is always in coastline - not inland - so accessible to floatplanes TR too. But your point of cost and 2E to 4E is valid.