Corsair not a killer but crap??

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

you have gained a lot of land in exchange for a lot of blood. its just a matter of time really.

with america putting out pilots in the 70s, how can I keep up even with a 2:1 ratio?

From a land grab standpoint. I thought I was well ahead of schedule...but who have I been fighting over DEI and Rabaul?

[Demosthenes]

I am amazed that this can be accomplished by on map training.
What I am thinking is - if this can be done by on map training (presumedly bombing China?) why would any Japanese player complain that ANYTHING the Allies get is ahistorical (like B-17s).

Don't get me wrong - I think this is great management and gameplay, but "historical" it ain't.[X(]

[Mynok]

Since, as supreme commanders, one of the areas we have control over IS doctrine undertaking major change to the pilot training programme is will within our remit ( assuming internal consistency in the game design).

Are we really supreme commanders? It seems we have the trappings of power with none of the real advantages. We can't change government policy. We can't make the IJA and IJN cooperate better. We can't revamp our shipbuilding program. No, we aren't supreme commanders, but the game pretends we are in some instances. As mentioned in another thread, this is part of the problem.

Victory Games got it right in Pacific War. There, you were pretty much an operational commander..at most a theater commander. All you could do was designate ships for operations and conduct them. I kinda wish WITP was more like that game, because it dumped all the logistical crap and concentrated on the only interesting part of the actual war: the operations.

why would any Japanese player complain that ANYTHING the Allies get is ahistorical (like B-17s).

Well, he is an exceptional case I assure you. Pauk is absolutely correct that this is as much the Allied player's responsibility. If there had been even a modicum of resistance put up, he would not have been able to spend all of his time training because those groups would have been needed for combat. It takes at minimum 100 missions to get a pilot into the 90s. That's 100 days plus however long it takes to Train them into the 40s, because it is rare for pilots to even fly if they have < 40 experience.

Thing is, those 90s pilots are going to die like dogs anyway. They might take down a few more Corsairs and Hellcats than their counterparts in history, but they will still die. Those B17s, however, won't, and they will kill 1000 times more men and stuff than they did historically. Is it worth arguing which is worse? Both are ahistorical, but only one changes the face of the game.

[rroberson]

I keep seeing Pauk (and others) saying that the allies need to fight harder earlier.

I honestly don't know how I could of fought him more.

When he grabbed the entire south pacific very early in game...it became what I joked about...ie the Betty Wall. ANything and I mean anything that got close to it died under a flurry of torpedos...(which despite protests otherwise is pretty ahistorical). I lost a couple of carriers during our early central pacific battles not to his carriers, but because hordes of bettys appeared on the horizon to pound mine damaged ones into the sea....despite fighter coverage.

I hit Tokyo harbor with carrier strikes.

I struggled to reinforce Oz. (and did but it took forever)

I couldnt get near Noumea without hordes of bettys pounding my ships into the sea.

For awhile I was sliding into his shipping lanes and hammering his tranports.

I have watched him slowly but surely pushing me out of China...me sending thousands of Chinese to their deaths without effect.

I did what I could in DEI, but since I didn't have 100s of B17s floating around due to the nik mod...what could I do, but watch garrison after garrison succumb?

We had a incredibly fun, but ultimetly very frustrating fight for Canton Island which I lost (I think that cost me a couple divisions of troops).

I screwed up my intial foray against the Betty wall (Saipan), but who the hell goes after Saipan in 42? I really had no choice. I had to fight somewhere..(I lost this game on points in 42).

After that, my units were spent and I had to hold off and rebuild.

Grabbing Wotje was good timing and luck and has allowed me to at least carve into his 90s...but don't think it wasn't desperation..(grabbing at straws).

I dont know...I really don't think I could of fought him harder then I did. Im sure open to suggestions though.

[aletoledo]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

I am amazed that this can be accomplished by on map training.
What I am thinking is - if this can be done by on map training (presumedly bombing China?) why would any Japanese player complain that ANYTHING the Allies get is ahistorical (like B-17s).

Don't get me wrong - I think this is great management and gameplay, but "historical" it ain't.[X(]

I rarely train in china because the chinese occasionally fight back and the distances aren't great for op-loses. I like my training best on pago pago and noumea. they both have decent airfields with enemy bases one hex away and the best thing about them is that there is almost never a cloud in the sky (so everyday is a training day). training fields in the phillipines and malaysa get scrubbed from weather practically every other day.

I took to heart something mogami said when he devised his on-map training method. he said there really are too many datai out there anyways to keep all fighting at one time. therefore what I did is to take and spread out packets of planes everywhere. it just so happened that the packets of planes in pago pago and noumea were never threaten and they just trained all the time.

in the mean time I have had a few datai fighting rob off the rest of the time in specific hotspots (like burma). there I cu8rrently have about 5 datais in the 90s, but that is from an original cadre of about 10 datais in the 90s. he killed and bombed 5 of those datais back to the 60s in a period of 3-4 months.

whenever I have an A2A loss its always a 90s exp pilot getting killed. I simply have so many squadrons and so much free time to train, that I could afford to let 1/10 of my air force hold the allies back, while the rest trained.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

I am amazed that this can be accomplished by on map training.
What I am thinking is - if this can be done by on map training (presumedly bombing China?) why would any Japanese player complain that ANYTHING the Allies get is ahistorical (like B-17s).

Don't get me wrong - I think this is great management and gameplay, but "historical" it ain't.[X(]

I rarely train in china because the chinese occasionally fight back and the distances aren't great for op-loses. I like my training best on pago pago and noumea. they both have decent airfields with enemy bases one hex away and the best thing about them is that there is almost never a cloud in the sky (so everyday is a training day). training fields in the phillipines and malaysa get scrubbed from weather practically every other day.

I took to heart something mogami said when he devised his on-map training method. he said there really are too many datai out there anyways to keep all fighting at one time. therefore what I did is to take and spread out packets of planes everywhere. it just so happened that the packets of planes in pago pago and noumea were never threaten and they just trained all the time.

in the mean time I have had a few datai fighting rob off the rest of the time in specific hotspots (like burma). there I cu8rrently have about 5 datais in the 90s, but that is from an original cadre of about 10 datais in the 90s. he killed and bombed 5 of those datais back to the 60s in a period of 3-4 months.

whenever I have an A2A loss its always a 90s exp pilot getting killed. I simply have so many squadrons and so much free time to train, that I could afford to let 1/10 of my air force hold the allies back, while the rest trained.

Well like I said above - it's great management...after reading RRobersons report above it dosen't sound like he chickened out and hid in Los Angeles either...in fact I'm sure he didn't because I would have seen his fleet over here drinking in the bars[:)]

All I can say is great play on your part aletoledo, but it does rather appear he was overwhelmed in a one-sided ass kicking.
Don't think I'll be trying the Nik Mod anytime soon if that is how the force structure goes.[;)]

RRoberson - any more observations?

Demo

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

I am amazed that this can be accomplished by on map training.
What I am thinking is - if this can be done by on map training (presumedly bombing China?) why would any Japanese player complain that ANYTHING the Allies get is ahistorical (like B-17s).

Don't get me wrong - I think this is great management and gameplay, but "historical" it ain't.[X(]

I rarely train in china because the chinese occasionally fight back and the distances aren't great for op-loses. I like my training best on pago pago and noumea. they both have decent airfields with enemy bases one hex away and the best thing about them is that there is almost never a cloud in the sky (so everyday is a training day). training fields in the phillipines and malaysa get scrubbed from weather practically every other day.

I took to heart something mogami said when he devised his on-map training method. he said there really are too many datai out there anyways to keep all fighting at one time. therefore what I did is to take and spread out packets of planes everywhere. it just so happened that the packets of planes in pago pago and noumea were never threaten and they just trained all the time.

in the mean time I have had a few datai fighting rob off the rest of the time in specific hotspots (like burma). there I cu8rrently have about 5 datais in the 90s, but that is from an original cadre of about 10 datais in the 90s. he killed and bombed 5 of those datais back to the 60s in a period of 3-4 months.

whenever I have an A2A loss its always a 90s exp pilot getting killed. I simply have so many squadrons and so much free time to train, that I could afford to let 1/10 of my air force hold the allies back, while the rest trained.

Well like I said above - it's great management...after reading RRobersons report above it dosen't sound like he chickened out and hid in Los Angeles either...in fact I'm sure he didn't because I would have seen his fleet over here drinking in the bars[:)]

All I can say is great play on your part aletoledo, but it does rather appear he was overwhelmed in a one-sided ass kicking.
Don't think I'll be trying the Nik Mod anytime soon if that is how the force structure goes.[;)]

RRoberson - any more observations?

Demo

We need to also bear in mind, I choose to play this sans any house rules. We had started an earlier game (lost to some database issue)that was a bit tighter on controls/houserules. I was generally curious what all the noise was about regarding Japanese training programs and grabbing the bulk of the central and south pacific before the allies could blink.

It sucks .

That being said, from a strategic standpoint it is one of the more enjoyable games I have ever played. I spend hours trying to figure out new ways to torture ale. Cracking the betty wall was a combination of ideas garnered from the forum and my many readings regarding the use of escort carriers during the war.

Its a damn fun game.

Historical it isnt and I would never ever accept another game like this without recognizing all the frustration I would be in for.

The nik mod doesnt prevent the Japanese player from running hog wild. (ale just finished taking China from me)..it slows him down a bit....he still has way way too much supply and fuel.

That being said, I really don't ever want to hear how unfair it is that the allies get all those fat 4Es in the vanilla game. A good japanese player can easily overwhelm that without a novel of houserules...have any doubt? Ask Ale how.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

ORIGINAL: aletoledo





I'm surprised I'm the only japanese player who appears to have ever trained his pilots up this high in this manner (or any manner I suppose). I do have plenty of datais trained up and I think I prefer fighting with highly trained ones, rather than have a 'realistic' fight and come out losing every air battle.

as rob said, I suppose there wasn't a lot he could do. I did the central pacific strategy and he didn't want to oppose my betties until he had more carriers for cover (the brave sir robin strategy). he did ask for advice in the forum and everyone said hold back until 1943 (which seems to be the standard advice) and also to hit me where I wasn't. well he hit me where I wasn't during all of 1942 and caused a lot of transport loses until I shifted forces to cover. however in the mean time, my forces on noumea and pago pago had absolutely nothing to do during this period of time, because that was where i was strong. they trained and trained. now its 1943 and he's attacking head on (quite successfully), but now I get to actually use my forces head to head.

it might be far from realistic, but as the supreme commander of the japanese forces, I'm not going to throw untrained pilots at him. I don't overstack bases and I don't exceed the aviation support available and I don't let them fly with more than 15 fatigue (usually less than 10). I really treat my pilots as the prime asset of the entire game. I think japan did treat its pilots special, particlarly the carrier ones, so I don't think training my pilots over the past year to a high degree is completely out of the question.

maybe the 90's is a bit high, but if the americans are scrambling to put anyone they can into a cockpit and I'll honing my veterans, I think I deserve some advantage from experience. rob says that his pilots are in the 70s, which I think is almost where they roll of the assembly line at, therefore I think my veterans deserve to all be 80+ (10 points above his) by virtue of his are green and mine are veterans. if he wants 80+ pilots too, then he can tell his government to stop stripping them away as instructors.

Im so screwed in our game. [:D]. I hadn't realized you had that many squadrons sitting at 90. In Burma I have been sending out fighter squadrons in the 50s (thats what london is sending me) trying to contest the skies there. I think I have begun to see the same things over the central pacific as the Americans struggle to keep up with losses over kwaj.

Yet you say Im succeeding?

This is the PERFECT example of what I was talking about much earlier in this thread. As long as the game allows you to train Gomer Pyle into Eric Hartmann by shooting up some pitiful defenseless schmucks on the ground, this kind of absurdity is possible. I'm not blaiming "aletoledo"; he's just making very good use of game's foolishness. Of course, it's every bit as foolish as the Allies having hundreds of extra 4-engined bombers in 1942, and EVERYBODY complained about that. In this case it's the Japanese who benefit because they have control over the first few months of the war and can leave defensless little Allied "pockets" in many areas of the map to exploit like this. The Allies can't even give up and disband or surrender (which would stop most of this nonsense). I love "aletoledo's" comment about how he "doesn't train in China because the Chinese sometimes fight back". If that doesn't prove that this is an exploit of a game mechanic I don't know what does.

[bradfordkay]

"It takes at minimum 100 missions to get a pilot into the 90s. That's 100 days plus however long it takes to Train them into the 40s, because it is rare for pilots to even fly if they have < 40 experience."

And thus this method is effectively prohibited to the allies, whose pilots are rotated after 100 missions... Any game that allows all squadrons to end up with average pilot experience in the nineties has some problems. I have noticed that the AI does the same thing, relentlessly bombing bypassed bases in the NEI well into 1943...

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: rroberson

ORIGINAL: aletoledo






This is the PERFECT example of what I was talking about much earlier in this thread. As long as the game allows you to train Gomer Pyle into Eric Hartmann by shooting up some pitiful defenseless schmucks on the ground, this kind of absurdity is possible. I'm not blaiming "aletoledo"; he's just making very good use of game's foolishness. Of course, it's every bit as foolish as the Allies having hundreds of extra 4-engined bombers in 1942, and EVERYBODY complained about that. In this case it's the Japanese who benefit because they have control over the first few months of the war and can leave defensless little Allied "pockets" in many areas of the map to exploit like this. The Allies can't even give up and disband or surrender (which would stop most of this nonsense). I love "aletoledo's" comment about how he "doesn't train in China because the Chinese sometimes fight back". If that doesn't prove that this is an exploit of a game mechanic I don't know what does.

It is an exploit. Without question. One of many.

[Mike Scholl]

And the easy "quick fix" is simply to allow players to "disband" units stranded in the middle of nowhere. Let's get it to the "1.9" suggestion box---unless someone has a better idea?

[bradfordkay]

Can't a player still train airgroups by bombing an empty, enemy held base?

[rroberson]

Yes he can, precisely what ale has been doing at noumea and the PI. THere is nothing left there alive. But the base never turns.

[Nikademus]

As long as your having fun doing it. [;)]

Ale's experience at least beats mine. [:D]

[BLUESBOB]

ORIGINAL: pauk

#1. how the hell Allies can use 100+ B17 in the January 1942 in DEI?
#2. How the hell Allies can respawn Philippines divisions and US units which were in Philippines at the start of the war?
#3. British fleet in PACIFIC?

(

#1 : You're right, it's TOTALLY unrealistic. We've only done this in our games because hitting Jap aircraft on the ground seems to be the only way we can destroy them. If 50 Zeros can knock down 200 F4F's in one A2A, heavy bombers have been the only choice we've had.

#2 : Totally realistic. Units escaping to friendly territory and reforming and rearming. I believe this happened throughout the war, both theaters, every combatant country.

#3 : House rule. We sent the Brits to the Pacific in one game. I didn't like it. Not realistic or sportsmanlike. I'd keep them where they were stationed. But if the Jap player speeds up production on his carriers...

[bradfordkay]

Remember, Australia is a member of the British Commonwealth, as is New Zealand. If it was seriously threatened, then it is likely that the RN would be sent to help. HMS Victorious (I think it was her) was sent to the Solomons to work with the USS Saratoga at one point in the war (she was codenamed USS Robin, IIRC) and embarked USN aircraft during this deployment.


edit: I swear that the Brady disease is contagious... most of my posts have to be edited for typos!

[ChezDaJez]

I am amazed that this can be accomplished by on map training.
What I am thinking is - if this can be done by on map training (presumedly bombing China?) why would any Japanese player complain that ANYTHING the Allies get is ahistorical (like B-17s).

Don't get me wrong - I think this is great management and gameplay, but "historical" it ain't.

I don't see anything wrong with training like this. How is it any different than the US using bypassed or forward area bases to fine-tune the skills of their pilots before commiting them to a major battle?

That's what the US used the Marshall's raids for in Feb 42. US carrier pilots had not yet seen combat and the US knew that the Japanese air units in the Marshalls were not substantial threats. So we conducted these raids to gain a little combat seasoning. The US conducted dozens of nuisance raids in early 42, both army and navy, in order to give their crews a taste of combat.

Later in the war, US carriers would raid bypassed islands on their way from the west coast or PH while enroute the next invasion site. That was solely for training purposes, not for any significant tactical or strategic value.

My overall take on the Japanese training program is that it is poorly implemented in the game. If the Japanese player is able to maintain sufficient supply in the home islands, why shouldn't they be able to retain a decent training program? Personally, I feel the Japanese flight training program should be tied to a cetrtain amount of excess supply in the home islands and if Japan is able to maintain that, she should be able to maintain pilot training at reasonable levels.

As it is now, the Japanese are stuck at receiving only 10 navy pilots a month. Yet historically, they produced nearly 345 well-trained navy pilots in 1942 alone. It wasn't until early 43 that the Japanese began revamping their flight training by substantially shortening the program. And while this reduction clearly had an impact on the quality of pilots being produced, it didn't have anywhere near the impact the lack of aviation fuel had beginning in mid-44.

Someone also mentioned that this on-map training is unfair because the US pilots are rotated out at about 100 missions. That's the way it was IRL. That's also why the US had so many very good pilots survive the war and the Japanese had so few.

Chez

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: BLUESBOB

ORIGINAL: pauk

#1. how the hell Allies can use 100+ B17 in the January 1942 in DEI?
#2. How the hell Allies can respawn Philippines divisions and US units which were in Philippines at the start of the war?
#3. British fleet in PACIFIC?

(

#1 : You're right, it's TOTALLY unrealistic. We've only done this in our games because hitting Jap aircraft on the ground seems to be the only way we can destroy them. If 50 Zeros can knock down 200 F4F's in one A2A, heavy bombers have been the only choice we've had.

#2 : Totally realistic. Units escaping to friendly territory and reforming and rearming. I believe this happened throughout the war, both theaters, every combatant country.

#3 : House rule. We sent the Brits to the Pacific in one game. I didn't like it. Not realistic or sportsmanlike. I'd keep them where they were stationed. But if the Jap player speeds up production on his carriers...

Hi, I've played the Allies a few times. I don't think in a stock scenario the Allies can use 100 B-17 in DEI in Jan 42.

Respawn PI divisions (have you looked at the replacement rate?)

British in Pacific whats wrong with this? Japanese in India? Japanese offensives in China? Japanese invading Oz?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: mlees

I would say it again. Allied players are responsible for that too. If you choose Sir Robin you are allowing Japanese massive training for half year or so. Only in that case Japan could train 10 or more groups to the 80ies. Atoledo daitai is, i believe isolated case (doubt that he trained several 90+ Daitais). If he done that, we should ask his opponent what he was doing for 7 months (pilots from his daitai have 220 missions!)

I just had a fair chuckle from this statement.

So, you have a Japanese squadron bombing an empty, bypassed Allied base (say, in the Phillippines), for 6-10 months, and they get their exp rating up into the 90's, and you say that's the Allied player's fault? (For not fighting when he, presumably, doesn't perceive a payoff in doing so?)

[:'(]

Allied: "What?!? you can't do that! That's soo gamey!"

IJA: "Wha, well.. It's your fault! You ran away for the first ten months of the game!"

Allied: (mumbles) "You left me little choice."

It all evens out anyway, doesn't it mlees? Afterall, when IJ retreats and leaves cut-off bases, then the Allies can blame their increase in flyer experience to the IJ retreat.

[pauk]

you may be amazed but i'm shocked....

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

I am amazed that this can be accomplished by on map training.
What I am thinking is - if this can be done by on map training (presumedly bombing China?) why would any Japanese player complain that ANYTHING the Allies get is ahistorical (like B-17s).

Don't get me wrong - I think this is great management and gameplay, but "historical" it ain't.[X(]