Author Topic: the kate (Read 751 times)

brady · « **Reply #15 on:** October 29, 2002, 09:29:49 PM »

B6N2's operated off:

Hiyo,Junyo,Shinyo,Shokaku,Taiyo,Unryu,Unyo, and Zuikaku.

The following land based kokutais also operated the B6N2:

551st,301st,653rd,705th.752nd,903rd.

Over 1,200 Jill's were produced and used operationaly.

The Grace is best suited for MA use, and or any late war event,as I stated and realy has no place on a CV unless it is in the MA, It does represent a great late war Japanese plane and could be used by all to great effect and would be very fun plane in the MA, I do not see why wanting it added means I want FA, I cerainly do not.

Montezuma · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2002, 09:56:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady
B6N2's operated off:

Hiyo,Junyo,Shinyo,Shokaku,Taiyo,Unryu,Unyo, and Zuikaku.

Hmm.. I don't have my books here but I assume you are correct.

Regardless, I think adding the kate was important since it was the biggest hole in the 1942 'carrier duel' plane set. I can see how you might think that the B6N would be a better choice since the TBM subs in for the TBD in those battles anyway.

It does not matter that much. They are torpedo planes, it is pretty much a 1-way trip no matter what

brady · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:08:33 PM »

Well they both have the same bombload(aprox.) The Jill is only 70mph(aprox.) faster and had a 50cal defensive MG as apposed to those 7mm show gun's. Imo 230 and 300 mph are prety different, all that extra time to target in the kate, which was also weaker in a number of ways compared to the Jill, in other words the Jill was much faster and more survivable, and better defended.

But as I stated earler(above) it is not so much a matter of us having the wrong Japanese planes as it is the issue of us having the wrong allied planes to set oppset from them in an event or CT set up. Imagine the howling if we used Spit I's aganst 109G6's in an event.

Also we only know 3 of the planes(one tank) so far included as new in the next update, who know's all this argument about Japan geting screwed may be about nothing more than the potential of it geting screwed.

-ammo- · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:18:14 PM »

I am pretty sure that one of the main reasons they modeled a B5N is because it was a priority on the CM list of needed AC. I am not saying I know why HTC came to that decision, but I know that the Kate was identified by the CM group as a need, that is all I am saying with that statement. I believe it fills a needed whole for early pacific battles. I am glad they modeled it.

brady · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:34:02 PM »

Another Quote of mine from the formentioned thread:

One thing we must remember is that the CM's have a slightly different nead than we do, while the CT may nead a plane set that is more ballanced in nature to help us create week long plane match up's that are both historical and fun to play. The CM events are of shorter duration but they are Big draws, so withen that framework plane preformance issues like mid war US planes(models) VS peral harbor Japanese models is less of a factor. That is to say the preformance issues present would not be as noticed when fighting squaderon sized battles for 5 to 10 min of engagement time after flying around for 45 min looking for love. In the CT this is the compleat oppset, we fight all the time all week long and these issues become very apparent, and are examplified in the Kate.

Joker312 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:59:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady

Is this setup considered balanced?

IJN/IJA:

A6M2 (1941)
B5N1 (1938)
D3A1 (1937)

vs.

USN/USAAF/RAF

Boston Mk III (1942)
F4F-4 (1941)
F4U-1 (1942)
Hurricane Mk I (1940)
Hurricane Mk IIc (1941)
P-40B (1940)
P-40E (1941)
SBD-5 (1943)
TBM-3 (1942)

Brady if your gonna moan about something at least get your dates right. For instance:

P40B- 1st flight 1938
A6M-2- 1st flight 1939 Production models in combat China 1940
Hurri I- 1st flight 1935 Squadron service 1937
Hurri II- Squadron service 1940
F4F-3 - 1st flight 1939 Squadron service 1940
F4F-3 and F4F-4 were identical for AH purposes. Real life changes were wing folding mechanism and 2 extra .50 cal MG's
These changes in effect made the plane slower and less manuverable.

Anyway my point is that the aircraft are in fact representative of the aircraft that fought during the early part of the war. It has nothing to do with balance.

Karnak · « **Reply #21 on:** October 29, 2002, 11:09:05 PM »

-ammo-,

In order to actually have a proper setup in the CT that uses the D3A1 and B5N1 we need these Allied aircraft that we do not have:

SBD-2 Dauntless
TBD-1 Devastator

I have never seen any call for either of those aircraft from the CMs, or anybody else. Everybody seems quite content to allow the Allies to sub in the TBM-3 and SBD-5 instead. Yet when an equivilent subbing is suggested for the Japanese by adding the B6N2 we get a whole load of crap about it not being the right aircraft.

If we do a Midway setup as is, the Japanese are getting jacked. Not only do we have to use the A6M2 in place of the A6M3, but we get to defend against aircraft that are far more potent that those they are standing in for.

Karnak · « **Reply #22 on:** October 29, 2002, 11:15:51 PM »

Joker,

Those were my dates, not brady's.

I use service entry dates, not first flight of a prototype dates. You are correct about the Hurricane Mk I. I messed up on that one. The Hurricane Mk IIc entered service in 1941.

The A6M2 barely out turns the F4F-4 as it is, and you say that the F4F-4 is at an unfair disadvantage. You're killing me.

Yep, the SBD-5 that can do 280mph sure is representative of the SBD-2 that could do 240mph. I'll have to remember that in future discussions. 40mph has no effect on WWII combat.

The TBD-1 Devastator was just as good as the TMB-3. The USN only replaced it because they felt like it. Sure, that makes sense.

The A6M3 that was at Midway is adequately represented by the A6M2. Funny how all the US substitutions are later aircraft in place of older aircraft and all the Japanese substitutions are older aircraft for later aircraft. None of that will have any affect at all.

jordi · « **Reply #23 on:** October 29, 2002, 11:29:15 PM »

I am not a plane expert here so sorry for any historically INACCURATE info I may have posted.

I am pretty sure that the CM group DID Ask for all the EARLY US Planes used in Pearl, Coral Sea and Midway. I would have LOVED to have gotton ALL of those historically Correct planes !

Now which ones HT decides to produce we have ZERO Control over. 6 months ago I would not have even TRIED to do a Midway Scenario with the planes that were avaialbe then. We are closer to a correct plane set than we were 6 months ago and I would bet we will be even CLOSER in 6 more months !

Yes they do know what Scearnios we have in the pipeline and this may influence thier decesion on what planes to produce.

In TIME ( More than 2 weeks ) HT will prodice all the planes THEY feel are correct for the game.

We are still on the slow developement stage of producing all of them.

-tronski- · « **Reply #24 on:** October 29, 2002, 11:35:56 PM »

I personally think more the merrier....The argument about needing uber A/C to survive the MA is irrelevant imho.
Not every flys La-7's, 51'a, or N1k1's and why?

Because some like a challenge.

It' funny how people want new planes, but complain when they're not MA friendly. Like the argument over the T-34 - it's not MA freindly it doesn't have an AAMG (Geez if your in a position where a laden Tiffie, or Mosquito is bearing down on you - and you think you've got a chance with your tank peashooter .... you're in the worng buisness).

If this was the final a/c introduced by HTC then there is an argument...but in six months who could tell whats available.

Tronsky

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** October 29, 2002, 11:45:38 PM »

tronski,

I have no problems with aircraft being added that are not MA friendly. That isn't my complaint at all. My compliant is that in scenarios and CT setups the Japanese and US aircraft they are choosing to add are massively imbalacing in favor of the US, and make no sense from a simply "what fought against what" stance.

HTC needs to create planesets that are appropriate opposition for one another.

Instead we're getting a 1941 Japanese planeset to use against a 1943 US planeset, and people are saying its all fine and makes no difference. The funny thing is, none of those players will be playing on the Japanese side.

brady · « **Reply #26 on:** October 30, 2002, 01:24:22 AM »

Joker,:

"Anyway my point is that the aircraft are in fact representative of the aircraft that fought during the early part of the war. It has nothing to do with balance. "

Exactly it has nothing to do with balance, the plane set's are not ballanced for all the reasions stated above, and realy Like I said for a CM set up in an event it is far less a factor than it is for a CT staffer, my gues it will never ocure to 90% of those people that the planes their flying in were not even in the air at the same time aposing one another, they will see Zero's and SBD's and it will stop at that. This has been stweing a long time and I certainly hope non of you are taking this personaly.

Balance is a term tosed around on the CT forum public and private, when we do set up's we try and creat a Balance so that one side is not at a serious disatvantage when we creat historical battles, or represent time frames, certainly the above planes are representive of PAC planes from WW2 they are howeaver by no means balanced, the torp bomber to add to acheave ballance aganst the alleid planes was cllearly the Jill, not the kate. But again this is realy only aparently important to those who frequant the CT and to those who have to plan those set up's.

I do appricate the hard work that goes into these plane adations and I certainly respect all the hard work the CM gent's do, my issue is certainly not with them. Like I said earler:

Personal: I fear we may be stuck with the Kate, what I mean by this that we may not see the Jill, or the Grace, since we alread have a Japanese torp bomber. Clearly the Jill would of been a better Balancing choice when set aganst the Mid war US CV planes we have at present, and Ultimately the Best choice for Main Areana utility would of been the Grace.

Well we can sub the Kate for the TBF......

jordi · « **Reply #27 on:** October 30, 2002, 04:39:59 AM »

Brady - stiff upper lip and all.

6 months ago we had 3 FEWER IJN Planes than we do now - what is to say we will not have MORE ( and balanced / JILL ) IJN PLanes 6 months from now ?

I would be discourged if over the last 6 months we saw NO NEW IJN PLanes - but we have and I see no reason why we will not see more.

Just because the plane you REALLY WANT is not out does not mean it will NEVER be produced.

Jordi

Staga · « **Reply #28 on:** October 30, 2002, 05:10:17 AM »

Which type would fit better to current planeset?

brady · « **Reply #29 on:** October 30, 2002, 05:16:09 AM »

"Brady - stiff upper lip and all."

I am a paticent man, I am still hear:)

"6 months ago we had 3 FEWER IJN Planes than we do now - what is to say we will not have MORE ( and balanced / JILL ) IJN PLanes 6 months from now ? "

Not realy, the peggy was added a year ago, over that realy, the Val is new yes, the A6M2 is a varient, how many US varients did we get last update. I do se your point though.

"I would be discourged if over the last 6 months we saw NO NEW IJN PLanes - but we have and I see no reason why we will not see more."

I have repeatedly said that I feal that we will in effect see more plaens for Japan, but i would wager that a New torp plane for them espichaly a CV torp plane is a long shot.

"Just because the plane you REALLY WANT is not out does not mean it will NEVER be produced."

It is not realy about the plane I realy want(the Ki 102), it is about balance and the tools to acheave that parity, or a sembalance of it closer to what we can see between the German and Allied plane set.