Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

[kfmiller41]

personally with the way that the Jap AI uses its AKs I am not particularly worried about their air force. At the rate they are going in my game the only way they will be able to move troops around is via transport AC[:D] as the losses in AK's and AP's has been staggering.

[pmelheck1]

Are you playing the Japanese AI or playing as Japan.  My production issues are with the Japanese AI.  Your WAY behind the AI power curve, the AI in my game at 32 months will have produced 51000 aircraft in the same period.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
I think the problem is that a lot of people want to be able to invade Tokyo on 8 Dec instead of having to play into 1944 to see the substantial allied forces come online.

No the problem is the allies have been constrained based on historical theater arrivals rather than historical production capability. The problem that entails, is that the game does not produce the low number of historical losses, because it's still far too bloody (though it is much much better than before).

If you look at table 2 on page 15 of this document http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf , you'll note that historically the F4F only lost 24 airframes to enemy anti air, 178 to enemy air, 49 to operational losses and another 112 on other non-combat related flights. For a grand total of just 363 F4Fs lost during the entire war, tallied from all carrier squadrons and front line squadrons in the combat theaters.

That's only about 25% of all the F4Fs produced during the war, so war production far outstripped losses which allowed squadrons to easily keep fleshed out with airframes and new squadrons to come online.

The game will always far exceed these loss numbers, but AE has now restricted production even more than WitP or CHS to a point that only the airframes that arrived historically to replace those historically low losses are in game. So the allies now have a glass jaw, one good hit and they're KOed.

Basically they can't afford to replace their F4F fleet even once if it gets chewed up. I can imagine the cries and howls we'd hear from the Japanese players if they found out that once their carrier fighters were shot down they could never replace them.

I mean think about it, the four carriers that were sunk never received replacement airframes after, so what happens if they survive in game? No planes arrived historically, so none arrive to keep them fleshed out...

And we're only talking about one of the airframes here. All the pool numbers for all their airframes are pathetically low.

Jim

[pmelheck1]

My issue isn't wanting to invade Japan in '42 it's that the AI is producing 50 planes a month of of model that their were a total of 215 produced for the entire war!  I'm trying to fend off 900 fighters a month in production with 50-60 fighters a month in production.  Trying to counter 750 a month in bomber production with 20-30 a month in bomber production

[Mynok]

Whatever the devs decide to do they had better not break human play just to fix AI play.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Whatever the devs decide to do they had better not break human play just to fix AI play.

Amen. The AI gets artificial breaks, because they also have handicaps, like an inability to effectively protect AKs as miller pointed out.

As for PBEM, I think we need to play this out for awhile before drawing conclusions. The only thing we can say so far is that the Zero isn't the P-40 killer it used to be, which is fine by me as that is closer to reality.

[Mynok]

PBEM is going to be a totally different animal from Witp.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Beezle



As a question for The Managment:

Are the units that show up equipped with F4F-4s (and everything else) "free" or are the A/C to fill those units taken from the pools?

If the group is to arrive with some planes, then the planes are not taken from the pool.
Only groups with no planes defined in the editor take planes from the pool to fill out the group.
Reformed or withdrawn groups generally arrive with no planes so they come from the pool. Unless the group is 'a return as' group, then it depends on if any plane numbers were defined in editor.

So when you say "The US produced 1200 F4F-4s" you have to count whatever A/C show up in new units in addition to the 45 A/C/month that are added to the pool.

Does anyone have a count on how many F4F-4s show up in new units, in addition to the 45/month and does that come out at the historic rate.

(This is all aside from the "IJ has control of their economy, the Allies don't" argument which does have value. If the allies had a disaster they would have turned up production and in a bit there would have been a lot more F4F-4s or whatever)

not to mention the A/c the were deployed to East coast squadrons. Remeber AE is just half the war.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


Is it just me or does the replacement rate on the allied aircraft pools just feel too low? I don't mind feeling like I'm constrained on airframes early in the war, but it smells *too* constrained right now.

Example is that I'm currently in October of 1942 against the AI and my carriers have been docked for over 6 months now replacing their strike groups.

I get 21 SBD dauntless a month.
I have six carriers that embark, between them, about 150 SBD dauntless.

After one large scale engagement where I lost > 100 dive bombers, my carriers are hors-de-combat for six months which just smells too high to me. I mean it takes time to replace losses and allied resoures were not infinite, but I have a hard time believing that an order for additional dive bombers couldn't have been put through and filled in a whole lot less than six months.

For what its worth, I've got similar issues with other aircraft lines as well, but this was just the easiest to point out.

Here is your problem.

This never happened IRL, you are having an ahistorical experiencing, thus you have ahistorical demands for A/C. You can console yourself in the knowledge that had this happened to real life commanders they would have shared your concern...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: dude

I always love how on one hand people will point out the "historical" fact on why one side is being limited (ie Germany First for the Allies in this case) while at the same time making a case for ahistorical game play for the other side (no limits to Japanese production)

As an allied player I’d like to try and play an ahistorical game once in awhile and see what happens if I can have a bit more production… let me spend some PP to have more aircraft shipped to the Pacific for example.

Just make it an option at the start to allow for historical/ahistorical production for either side.  Like I said earlier if I wanted to see the historical outcome for the allies, I’ll read one of the numerous books I have on WWII…

In the mean time, in my case, I feel like I’m being hampered for trying to play the game a different way then the allies did historically… while the Japanese can try any ahistorical route they want.  This is especially true if the Japanese AI is doing things it didn’t do historically and I’m expected to use the material the Allies had historically… I should be given the chance to counter the ahistorical AI moves.  One of the reasons I’m running through so many planes is the moves the AI is making… (which I’m not complaining about) and my attemps to counter them.  I’m having to run all over the place with my Carriers short on aircraft just to stop a task force heading for Bora Bora for example!

Unfortunately that is not how this game was designed. You can complain to the high heavens and it won't change the fact that what you are talking about is a major code rewrite and not only outside the scope of the AE project, but also outside the scope of Gary Grigsby's original design concept.

To those that feel the Allies are treated unfairly in this aspect of the game I will reuse my age old response.

"WitP was designed, much like Bombing the Reich before it and despite the title, to explore the losers of WWII. In both cases the side with the most flexibility, or options such as production, or economy, or whatever is in fact the Axis side. Why?

I believe it is because the variables that were critical to their failure were on the losing side. In other words, the Allies got it right the first time. What these two Grigsby products aimed to discover was what could have been done on the losing side to change things.

I am not advocating one design or another. That ship has sailed, long before AE was born. The point is moot.

If this idea offends your sensibilities, sorry.

[Tomcat]

The debate has been interesting but I suspect it mostly applies to people who do PBEM. I stick to fighting the AI so I can mod the game to my heart's content. If I ever get promoted from "landlubber 3rd class" to "seaman apprentice" I might try PBEM, but for now I mod the game to where I enjoy fighting it out with the AI.

[erstad]

I ran a quick test, head to head, hotfix version, with two airgroups that start down in pilots in Japan. Default leaders.

Case 1: Claudes, pulled in 15 green pilots, trained 100% for 30 days on escort, then 100% on general for 30 days.
After 30 days, experience for the newbies was between 36 and 46. Air was 68 to 72. Defense was a dismal 23(!) to 43.
After the second thirty days, experience was 43-51, with defense in 52-68. Not terrible, but hardly Saburo Sakai stats.

Case 2: Daves, pulled in 24 green pilots, trained for 60 days on 100% general. At end of the 60 days, the experience was 37-51.

Also note that unlike Witp, there is not a bottomless pool of pilots. You get about 10 pilots per day to replace all losses (plus hefty starting pools that will carry you for a while). I wonder if we're going to find that JFBs who adopt an all-out attrition strategy won't surprise themselves when they run out of "Trained" pilots and start going for the 30's, 25's, 20's, 10's, etc. Early on to knock out the AVG and the Phillipines P-40's, sure. Extended strategy - not my choice.

I'm only 6 weeks into my PBEM, so I won't claim to know whether things are "balance" or which side is favored. However, I do think the challenges of training and pilot replacement are not fully appreciated.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


Is it just me or does the replacement rate on the allied aircraft pools just feel too low? I don't mind feeling like I'm constrained on airframes early in the war, but it smells *too* constrained right now.

Example is that I'm currently in October of 1942 against the AI and my carriers have been docked for over 6 months now replacing their strike groups.

I get 21 SBD dauntless a month.
I have six carriers that embark, between them, about 150 SBD dauntless.

After one large scale engagement where I lost > 100 dive bombers, my carriers are hors-de-combat for six months which just smells too high to me. I mean it takes time to replace losses and allied resoures were not infinite, but I have a hard time believing that an order for additional dive bombers couldn't have been put through and filled in a whole lot less than six months.

For what its worth, I've got similar issues with other aircraft lines as well, but this was just the easiest to point out.

Here is your problem.

This never happened IRL, you are having an ahistorical experiencing, thus you have ahistorical demands for A/C. You can console yourself in the knowledge that had this happened to real life commanders they would have shared your concern...

At some level, that is my point though.

I get replacements based on what happened in real life.

The game, as a model of air warfare, however, does not model real life for two reasons.

1) Aircraft losses *in game* far exceed comparable losses in the real world. Even with the reduced bloodiness of AE's air combat model, losses are still dramatically higher than historical use patterns would indicate.

2) The historical replacement rates were dictated by the historical operational tempo. As a player, I shouldn't be constrained to repeat history, but rather should be able to explore alteratives. As it stands right now, I don't have enough airframes to fight an ahistorical war. I'm basically forced into a sir-robin for the first 12 months or so.

I at least would much prefer an allied replacement model which tried to model allied capabilities and political realities more so than actual deliveries. If I take huge aircraft losses in one set of airframes, I'd quite reasonably expect the politicians and industrialists back home to ramp up production there over the next few months. Likewise, if I husband my forces and have light losses, I'd expect deliveries to drop.

In other words I'd expect the allied production system to behave vaguely like a military replacement pipeline. Airframes that get burned up see their production increase. Those which accumulate in bases doing nothing will see their production rate decline to free up resources for planes with higher priority.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: erstad
Case 1:

Try a Case 3 :

30 days of strafing helpless bases in China for experience's sake.

And then 30 days of air to air combat training for air combat rating's sake.

Or vice versa. Might be that the strafing should be done last, if training is less effective the more experienced they already are.

[Hokum]

For all its empire, Japan was a small country, its industrial capacity was lower than France's. If you want a challenge (i.e a game) you must help her in a significant way.



This is a game where history is agonised over, where killratios and surface engagements and every last xAP has been lovingly worked on and considered and matched up to history.

Allied aircraft production is supposedly as close to the real world figures as could be obtained. Air combat is supposedly as close to the real world as a game can manage.

...and yet Japanese aircraft production figures are orders of magnitude out in some cases.

Yes, this was my point. It is hard to emphasize enough how weak Japan was compared to the allies. If you change the production rules a bit too much, then there is no game.

Note that I would be all for a "King's dream" scenario where FDR decides to go all-out in the pacific. But I'm ready to bet you that it would be just as boring as a "Dec-41 Apr-42" scenario for Japan would be. Right now, the game is forcing the US to be careful until 1943, and I think it's a good thing.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Hokum
Yes, this was my point. It is hard to emphasize enough how weak Japan was compared to the allies. If you change the production rules a bit too much, then there is no game.

Far as I was concerned there was 'no game' in WITP after it became clear what the score was.

I think AE is a huge improvement, still. But having Zero production at 10 times reality is totally whacked. I find it unbelievable that so much detail and haggling can go on in a game, down to the precise performance of individual pieces of naval ordnance, when theres this elephant in the room which is actually absolutely fundamental, the very root of strategy - how much stuff you get.

Imagine if P40s were ten times more effective than in reality. Or if a Brooklyn cruiser was ten times more effective than in reality, or a Zero. Imagine the threads that would result. Factories for some reason seem to get a free pass, and avoid the (perhaps excessive) scrutiny all other parts of the game receive.

And I'm not interested at all in Allied choices to match the Japanese ones, so thats a straw man. The Axis can have their extra choices and flexibility. If I had to manage the Allied economy I dunno if I'd even play the GC at all, I find it the anti-fun. Flexibility isn't the issue. The issue is insanity.

I have high hopes that the numbers won't actually be so crazy when the pbems get to the mid 1942 mark. Certainly absolutely every turn seems to be far more stringent than WITP, so surely production isn't going to match what it ever did in WITP. But if the numbers are again out by orders of magnitude... then they need addressing, in the exact same way that Buffaloes scoring 10 to 1 kill ratios against Zeroes would need addressing.

[Peever]

ORIGINAL: TheElf
I believe it is because the variables that were critical to their failure were on the losing side. In other words, the Allies got it right the first time. What these two Grigsby products aimed to discover was what could have been done on the losing side to change things.

While I agree that the fun of war games is finding out what could have been done differently, focusing on the Axis because they lost seems like a narrow approach. The Allies did not fight the war in a vacuum. They fought the war based on the conditions at the time and had those conditions been different then they would have fought the war differently. We know that if Japan wants to win they better not follow history [:D]. So Japan must fight the war differently and this in turn will cause the Allies to respond in a different manner.

Japan is acting much more aggressively in my game than they did historically. Unless I want the supply line to Australia cut I’m forced to respond and put up a more rugged defense than the Allies actually did. Unfortunately I’m stuck with “historical” aircraft replacements despite fighting an a-historical war.

pat.casey:
In other words I'd expect the allied production system to behave vaguely like a military replacement pipeline. Airframes that get burned up see their production increase. Those which accumulate in bases doing nothing will see their production rate decline to free up resources for planes with higher priority.

That would be really nice. I image something like that would require a complete recoding of the game though.

[Jzanes]

Given the TheElf's post, it sounds like this issue is going no where at this point.

I think it'll take some time before the data from some PBEM games starts to roll in. Then maybe this will be revisited.

I really hope it turns out to be a non-issue but I have real concerns that the impact of these low allied replacement levels is gonna ruin or at least skew the PBEM game.

[pmelheck1]

My concern is once again the production on the Japanese AI only, not 2 player in any form.  I don't necessarily feel the allies are producing low as the AI is WAY over producing. Please point out the historical document showing Japan out produced aircraft, tanks, gun and supplies at 10 times the rate of the allies during all of WW2 and I'll be happy.

[witpqs]

The AE made it clear a long time ago (early in the project) that this request was way out of scope. As Elf said, it's just a different philosophy than the one chosen for the original game design. Apparently it also happens to be a whole boatload of work to implement it.

I don't have any particular problem with it the way it is, or if the alternate philosophy were in place. They're just different kettles of fish.