Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: 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.

What would you suggest? An unlimited supply of SBDs, just in case you lose a battle you SHOULD have won based on History? What are the consequences of mistakes if that is the case? Can you imagine the outcry from the other 99.9% of the community if we changed rates to anything other than historical levels? All in favor....?

The notion that we have replacement rates for the allies at any level other than historical is somehow strange to me.

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.

I respectfully disagree. I've had games where I never lost that many SBDs. In fact in all my games I've NEVER had an SBD shortage.

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.

Replacement rates were dictated by BuAer and were meted out by projections of losses based on past experience. This of course also projected op tempo, but early in the war they were dictated temporarily by production limitations as we transitioned from an underfunded prewar Navy to an over funded War-time Navy. The USN and the USMC especially were under equipped in 1941. Shortages of all aluminum skin, modern mono-planes abounded until manufacturers could get things going.

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.

Not to sound harsh, but this game never intended to go there and AE will likely never go there. It just isn't in the cards. But ramping up production takes time. Even when operating at war time levels. Any larger than expected attrition event would cause a pinch, and would indeed take a *few months* to be seen in the fleet. In the meantime....you're in the same position.

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.

You'll have to try the Japanese player if you want that luxury. You can always console yourself with the fact that none of us, even the AE team, really had any other choice. Alternatively you could wait til late '42 or early '42 to lose 100+ SBDs [;)]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: 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.

To quote a wise man:
By Jove..., I think he's got it! [;)]

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: 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.

To quote a wise man:
By Jove..., I think he's got it! [;)]

Perhaps, but I'd think that implementing allied production as a set of on-map factories and supply sources in con-usa would have been within the realm of practicality back when AE started. The amount of time that went into lovingly modelling hundreds of unique AK hulls, low production run planes, and incredibly rare pieces of artillary could, instead, probably have gone into putting allied production on-map, neh?

At some level, I don't doubt you're right e.g. it probably can't change at this point, but that does raise two followup points.

1) If it can't be changed, then I think the allied production rates should be bumped up globally to offset the ahistorical nature of japanese production. If you want a game where each player has an equivalent opportunity to step outside of the historical box then the allied player needs airframes too.

2) If and when there's a WITP 2, I'd like to register one vote for a symetrical production system. Either both parties should have on-map production, or neither.

[Peever]

TheElf:
Can you imagine the outcry from the other 99.9% of the community if we changed rates to anything other than historical levels? All in favor....?

As much as I personally would like to see different productions levels I concede there would be no way to get a consensus as to what they would be other than historical. That's why I'm grateful the game includes a great editor so I can tweak little things here and there to suit my own play style ,or create truly ludicrous "what-if" scenarios.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yep. That's what I'm getting from the post history here and from reading the manual. The Japs are properly constrained by pilots, while the Allies are somewhat constrained by the supply of airframes. I'm hoping that translates into a slower tempo by both sides from the blitzkrieg of Witp, as well as making for an interesting game in a reasonably historical context. Time will tell.

[jwilkerson]

The main constraint for the Japanese, is the same as it has always been and that is that the air group order of battle is fixed. No matter how many 10s of 1000s of planes I might have in the pools, I can never deploy more than I have aircraft "slots" in the fixed airgroup OOB.

Now if I could make up new airgroups - that might be an issue!!! But I cannot.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

1) If it can't be changed, then I think the allied production rates should be bumped up globally to offset the ahistorical nature of japanese production. If you want a game where each player has an equivalent opportunity to step outside of the historical box then the allied player needs airframes too.

2) If and when there's a WITP 2, I'd like to register one vote for a symetrical production system. Either both parties should have on-map production, or neither.

Japanese production seems far more historical than in Witp. They may be able to build more frames than historically, but it won't increase their front-line groups much because of the training issue. They have SERIOUS pilot limitations, which is absolutely how it should be.

Recognize also that the only reason there in on-map Japanese production is to allow the allies to attack it, via sub warfare and bombing. That comes straight from the original Witp developers.

The Japanese are also far more constrained in how much they can expand industry in AE. They just cannot support massive expansion like they could in stock Witp.

[Arimus]

If the US had suffered a major setback in the Pacific and needed more aircraft and those aircraft were available then they would have been assigned to the PTO. 
A simple solution could be to place units on the east coast with a number of airframes and allow the allied player to buy them with PP's.
This would simulate what would really happen and is within the realm of possibilites as far as game-engine capabilities. 

[jwilkerson]

I've been playing WITP and AE for over 5 years and I can assure you - I have never seen the Allies run out of aircraft!!!
[:)]

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: Arimus

If the US had suffered a major setback in the Pacific and needed more aircraft and those aircraft were available then they would have been assigned to the PTO. 
A simple solution could be to place units on the east coast with a number of airframes and allow the allied player to buy them with PP's.
This would simulate what would really happen and is within the realm of possibilities as far as game-engine capabilities. 

Perhaps in a Rainbow 2 or 3 scenario?

" RAINBOW 1 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies. United States forces would act jointly to prevent the violation of the Monroe Doctrine by protecting the territory of the Western Hemisphere north of 10 degrees South Latitude, from which the vital interests of the United States might be threatened. The joint tasks of the Army and Navy included protection of the United States, its possessions and its sea-borne trade. A strategic defensive was to be maintained in the Pacific, from behind the line Alaska-Hawaii-Panama, until developments in the Atlantic permitted concentration of the fleet in mid-Pacific for offensive action against Japan.

RAINBOW 2 assumed that the United States, Great Britain, and France would be acting in concert, with limited participation of U.S. forces in continental Europe and in the Atlantic. The United States could, therefore, undertake immediate offensive operations across the Pacific to sustain the interests of democratic powers by the defeat of enemy forces.

RAINBOW 3 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies. Hemisphere defense was to be assured, as in RAINBOW 1, but with early projection of U.S. forces from Hawaii into the western Pacific.

RAINBOW 4 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies, employing its forces in defense of the whole of the Western Hemisphere, but also with provision for United States Army forces to be sent to the southern part of South America, and to be used in joint operations in eastern Atlantic areas. A strategic defensive, as in RAINBOW 1, was to be maintained in the Pacific until the situation in the Atlantic permitted transfer of major naval forces for an offensive against Japan.

RAINBOW 5 assumed the United States, Great Britain, and France to be acting in concert; hemisphere defense was to be assured as in RAINBOW 1, with early projection of U.S. forces to the eastern Atlantic, and to either or both the African and European Continents; offensive operations were to be conducted, in concert with British and allied forces, to effect the defeat of Germany and Italy. A strategic defensive was to be maintained in the Pacific until success against the European Axis Powers permitted transfer of major forces to the Pacific for an offensive against Japan."

In actuality, FDR adopted something closer to Rainbow 5...

"Though the President had not given his approval, the decision on the course the United States would follow in the event it was "compelled to resort to war" had, in effect, been made. The United States would make the main effort in the Atlantic and European area where the major enemy, Germany, was located, Just how the final blow would be delivered was not yet known, but the Americans expected it would require a large-scale ground offensive. In the Pacific and Far East, United States strategy would be defensive, with greatest emphasis on the area encompassed by the strategic triangle, Alaska-Hawaii-Panama. Implicit in this concept was acceptance of the loss of the Philippines, Wake, and Guam, Thus, in a period of less than three years, the Pacific orientation of U.S. strategy, developed over a period of many years, was completely reversed. By mid-1941, in response to the threat from Europe, the eyes of American strategists were focused on the Atlantic. It was there, they believed, that the war in which the United States was certain to be involved would be decided.

These expectations were more than fulfilled. Though the war when it came opened with an attack in the Pacific, the President and his military advisers made it clear at the outset in the first of the wartime conferences with the British held at Washington in December 1941-January 1942 (ARCADIA) that they would stand by their decision to defeat Germany first. Not once during the course of the war was this decision successfully challenged."

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_01.htm

[rominet]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


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

So, instead of having 3 big scenarii for GC, the 1 for historical, the 2 for enhanced jap and the 3 Ironman (the last 2 being "what if" scenarii),
why don't ask for one for Allies against AI, one for Jap against AI and the last for PBEM??

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I didn't run a full 30 days but I pulled 6 green pilots into a nate unit in China and did low level attacks against an empty base for 9 days of turns; the planes flew 6 of the 9 turns. At the end of the 9 days, the exp of the newbies was 27 to 45, only a point or two higher than they started. Two of the six hadn't budged from their starting "40".

Remember, this isn't Witp-classic. Strafing empty bases will help your strafing skill some, but isn't a miracle tonic to make fighter aces.

[Arimus]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've been playing WITP and AE for over 5 years and I can assure you - I have never seen the Allies run out of aircraft!!!
[:)]

I believe several people have stated that they have indeed run out of aircraft. In my own game, my carriers have to sit at Pearl for several months because I suffered some losses during an early raid on the Marshall's. Historical enough except for the fact that the AI is currently conducting an operation to take the Ellice Islands.
Luckily, the KB has been stuck in the DEI for 3 weeks.

You have a Japanese player (or AI) capable of conducting ahistorical campaigns leading to ahistorical combat and ahistorical losses. However, the Allied player is limited to the historical airframe ALLOCATION (not historical production) which limits his options to historical responses. Note that the airframes are available, just not allocated to the PTO.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Arimus
You have a Japanese player (or AI) capable of conducting ahistorical campaigns leading to ahistorical combat and ahistorical losses. However, the Allied player is limited to the historical airframe ALLOCATION (not historical production) which limits his options to historical responses. Note that the airframes are available, just not allocated to the PTO.

I'm not bothered about the Japanese being able to change their production, focus in a different area, maybe leverage resources that in reality they did not have due to a better run of conquests in 1942, etc. Sounds all good stuff.

However if the production system is producing results an order of magnitude from reality something is wrong. Imagine if Buffaloes produced results an order of magnitude from reality, or US dud torpedoes, or Allied radar sets, or for that matter Zero kill ratios. No end of argument. I don't think factories deserve a free pass. I'm not saying they should be fixed to constant production values, or that the Allies should get to tailor their production. I'm saying that 10x as many Betties as they had in reality is insane. As insane as Buffaloes getting 10 to 1 against Zeroes.

Pilot limits, airgroup limits, thats all smoke, different issues. If it wasn't smoke you could give the Allies 200 P40s a month, they have limited airgroups too after all. You think it'd make no difference?

[m10bob]

I wonder if the computer can keep track of how many of each type of plane it has created?

If so, maybe an editor could be enhanced to include a variable "numbers built" box, so if we knew only 100 f4f-2's were built, the computer would know to only build 100 of them?

If this were variable for the player, we could alter this number ourselves(in the editor) ourselves, based on historical production numbers, sci fi, whatever?

Just thinkin' out loud guys.

[Arimus]

I think the ahistorical campaigns that the AI is capable of is great. A "buffed" AI opponent with ahistorical production capacity (within reason!) is also a good idea.
With the Ironman scenario, the developers are basically making two sets of scenarios. One for head to head(PBEM) and one for human vs AI. Another good idea and pretty common in military games that attempt to provide an AI.

However, the historical accuracy of allied airframe allotment in the PTO may have to be modified for the sake of gameplay.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Arimus

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've been playing WITP and AE for over 5 years and I can assure you - I have never seen the Allies run out of aircraft!!!
[:)]

I believe several people have stated that they have indeed run out of aircraft. In my own game, my carriers have to sit at Pearl for several months because I suffered some losses during an early raid on the Marshall's. Historical enough except for the fact that the AI is currently conducting an operation to take the Ellice Islands.
Luckily, the KB has been stuck in the DEI for 3 weeks.

You have a Japanese player (or AI) capable of conducting ahistorical campaigns leading to ahistorical combat and ahistorical losses. However, the Allied player is limited to the historical airframe ALLOCATION (not historical production) which limits his options to historical responses. Note that the airframes are available, just not allocated to the PTO.

... this is exactly my point... I HAVE run out of aircraft... part of the the problem is the ahistorical results for both sides. By the end of '42 I've only lost 1 carrier the rest are still operational but with very limited aircraft. Without these "extra" carriers that the US did not have historically (since Lex, Hornet, Yorktown, Wasp all sunk in '42) there were plenty of planes for the Enterprise since Saratoga spent a lot of time under repairs (Jan -June, Sept - Nov). So "historically" the build numbers are great if you just have one carrier to supply.

This needs to be accounted for. The only way I can see playing this game at this point is to lose a few carriers so you can keep one fully supplied with aircraft. Had the US Navy been able to keep all it's flat tops I'm sure they would have also found a way to keep them supplied with aircraft. The game imposes a limit for playing well!

[Chickenboy]

What about using PP to increase a certain months' worth of production / allocation. Wouldn't this mimic the 'political cost' of going directly to the JCS and screaming about PTO fighter allocation? Want another 50 F4Fs in the replacement pool three months from now? Is it worth 500 political points to ya?

Just thinking aloud.

[Arimus]

Historically, the US built about 570 F4F-3's and 3A's. 191 went to the Brits, 100 show up in the game with units and 39 show up as replacements.
That leaves 240 in the US somewhere (probable at Grumman's airfield waiting for the Navy to take delivery!). Even with 30% loss due to all causes, that leaves 168 somewhere in the US (training units, Atlantic carriers?). I think it is safe to assume that many of these airframes would have been made available to the PTO if needed.
This is probable common for most US airframes.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

What about using PP to increase a certain months' worth of production / allocation. Wouldn't this mimic the 'political cost' of going directly to the JCS and screaming about PTO fighter allocation? Want another 50 F4Fs in the replacement pool three months from now? Is it worth 500 political points to ya?

Just thinking aloud.

... I suggested the same thing a few pages back and I still think it's a good solution to the problem... I mean if they let us use PP to reasign units that were supposed to be stationed in certain places and not moved then why not let us spend the PP's on extra airframes? It might actually slow me down moving all the forces in India and taking Bangkok by June '42 [:)] if I had to spend some of those PP on replacement planes for my carriers that didn't sink historically...