Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

[pmelheck1]

I'm not looking to change U.S. production but want to stop the 3000 aircraft Japan is producing by telling the AI to not expand to 400 airframes at game start.

[Arimus]

ORIGINAL: mullk

I'm not looking to change U.S. production but want to stop the 3000 aircraft Japan is producing by telling the AI to not expand to 400 airframes at game start.

Is there an AI script that increases Jap aircraft production?

Also, what would we call a community designed scenario that corrects historical problems in the GC?

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

that 113 was only on combat missions according to page 1:

No. If u read the table at page 14 u will see that ops losses action sorties 48 and on other flights 65. So yes he writes that on page 1 non the less in the tables he gives values for non action sorties any how. To add from page 4.

LOSSES ON ACTION SORTIES Includes all planes counted as action sorties, which failed ta return %0 a friendly base or were destroyed in.landing at base ) PIUS planes returning and later destroyed because of damage sustained during the mission, plus P=S lost on unreported missions which apparently involved action with tie enemy. All los=on action sorties have been classified by cause under the three categories Enemy A/A, Enemy A/C, and Operational. Where the exact cause was not given in the action report (planes reported missing) the cause most likely under the circumstances of loss described was arbitrarily assigned, or if the circumstances were not stated,
the cause stated in the loss report was assigned.

Losses on Other Flights These are limited to losses, during each month, of planes assigned to squadrons which reported engaging in action against the enemy during that month. For these squadrons these figures represent all operational losses of airborne planes, on missions not involving action against the enemy; they include also planes later stricken because of operational damage sustained on such flights.

So all losses for operational sorties are included, possibly less that of ASW. Ofc that matters for some planes but not for other. Not that many F4U did ASW mission.

No it doesnt include for example all the SDB lost in training, but thats just all the better. The replacement rate in game only reflects the airframes delivered to theather/combat units. In game u get no ops losses doing training to reflect that. So these figurs fit perfectly.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[John Lansford]

I'm already seeing a drop off in Japanese LBA attacks and it's only late December 41.  Betty losses over Manila and Singapore have been very heavy due to inadequate escorts, and even my RN Buffalo pilots now have a few aces among them.  Shipping airstrikes against Dutch TF's around Java have dropped to 2-3 planes each, flying from Sarewak, and the Dutch pilots are shooting them down too.  Nells have almost completely vanished from the air, lots of Sallys and Anns though.  I haven't checked the pilot skill level for the IJN but suspect it's already declining.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: pompack

Interesting, I had not realized there were that few SBD sorties. Note that the "OPS" rate in this table is 2.4% with 64% of the losses not combat related so it does correspond with other data I have seen. If you look at the land-based SBDs you get 0.5% and 62% respectively, clearly carriers are dangerous places to fly from [:)].

Well problem is the author doesnt included non action sortie numbers while he does include non action sorties losses. So the actual number of sorties was higher.

Looking at page 28 table 9. For Carrier based units. Its sadly only for 44-45, but still it gives some idea.
For the SBD operational losses per 100 action sorties 0.24
Operational losses per 100 other flights 0.38

Alot less than 2.4%

ORIGINAL: pompack
So what about the sorties that did NOT result in a attacks ... ? Are operational losses for such flights included in these tables? I would tend to doubt it because the entire purpose of the paper is to show how great Naval Aviation performed; I don't see them including data that would give the enoneous impression that losses per sortie were higher than they really were.

Overall a good source full of interesting data. But I still suspect that there were more losses (and more sorties) than are shown in these tables simply because there were a LOT of sorties that did not engage in attacks, aerial combat or both and some of those sorties resulted in lost or written-off a/c.

Yes there were more sorties flown but the author gives the ops losses on those flights too.
Action sorties vs other flight sorties.
Read my posting in responce to Marty A above on a discussion and relevant quotes from the paper.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[pmelheck1]

The AI player expands factories because they don't start the campaign producing unlimited replacements. As the AI expands the factories their should be a scripted event telling the AI when and how much to expand. If the game just firewalls Japans production the Japanese economy would be unsustainable. We just need to look at the conditions of expansion and set them so that they don't exceed what was done historically. 1. I don't want the Japanese economy to crash due to over production. 2. When I bought AE I wanted a game that was true to history not one where I am playing historical and the other side is playing "Command and Conquer". What if's are wonderful scenarios but we have all these scenario slots surly we can have one GC with historical production by both sides and leave unlimited production for Japan to scenario 2. And once again this is just for the single player game, 2 player can be left as is as I'm sure the starting numbers are correct for both sides. This was a problem with the original WITP. Every game I ever played the Japanese economy crashed due to over production. In WITP We had inflated production of allied aircraft to make up for inflated Japanese production. Now we have significantly lowered allied production to bring it in line with history but haven't addressed the problems with Japanese production. Japan could NEVER have out produced the USA as it does in AE. Most of Japan's industry was cottage industry as I recall. Large scale factories did exist but not to the extent they would be able to out produce the United States.

[Jaypea]

ORIGINAL: mullk

I looked through the editor but I can't find the AI module dealing with factory expansion.  If you would be so kind as to let me know which AI script number it is.

I agree with Mullk, can one of the developers tell us how to edit the JAP AI so they will produce less a/c? Is it a script or just repairing of factories? Any help appreciated.

Jaypea[:)]

[oldman45]

IF you cut the AI production, come 43 I will bet you that you will be hard pressed to find an air threat from the AI. By then you will have probably sunk the AI's carriers, then what will you do? Where is the fun if you are simply taking islands with no threat or effort other than logistics.

The bottom line is the Allies are going to win against the AI, the only question is what strategy does the human player use and how fast can he do it.

[CJ Martin]

ORIGINAL: timtom

As always, if one has any data that might be helpful in this or any other regard, don't be shy

Have you checked out all the data available at this site?

http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww ... loc-ac.htm

There are *weekly* inventory/locations for all USN/USMC squadrons (as well as the locations of tenders and some other ships). These appear to be actual declassified USN reports from that period.

-CJ

[Gary D]

CJ,

Very nice site! Thanks for posting this. Looks like a lot of enjoyable hours to be had there.

All the best!

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: CJ Martin

ORIGINAL: timtom

As always, if one has any data that might be helpful in this or any other regard, don't be shy

Have you checked out all the data available at this site?

http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww ... loc-ac.htm

There are *weekly* inventory/locations for all USN/USMC squadrons (as well as the locations of tenders and some other ships). These appear to be actual declassified USN reports from that period.

-CJ

Cheers, CJ

When I wrote "a historical OOB is (almost) done based on primary documents outlining the location and complement of USN carrier units", I was obliquely refering to these documents. If one knew the historical loss rates of particular aircraft, one could arrive at an decent approximation of PTO airframe allocations - providing one was able&willing to sink the necesary time into it - with the same material.

[Jaypea]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

IF you cut the AI production, come 43 I will bet you that you will be hard pressed to find an air threat from the AI. By then you will have probably sunk the AI's carriers, then what will you do? Where is the fun if you are simply taking islands with no threat or effort other than logistics.

The bottom line is the Allies are going to win against the AI, the only question is what strategy does the human player use and how fast can he do it.

My game is in January of 1943 and the AI has lost a total of 17K a/c and in reserve, the AI has 34k a/c plus all full groups on the map. I have lost 5k a/c with 1/2 of my airgroups idle due to lack of a/c. Up until late 1942, I was able to just keep up with the AI in terms of holding back the hordes. As of Jan 1943, my last reserves of planes hav ran out and my air groups are being decimated 1 by 1. With no chance to keep the AI numbers lower, I have stopped playing the game. Its very hopeless at this point and look forward its probably not until end 1943 that I would have suffient ARMY planes to go back on the offensive. Fighters, medium & heavy US bombers are pathetic in production. My only saving grace was canadian and british fighter groups which had enough fighters to help keep the horde at bay (but these reserves have just run out and now its all going down hill).

Jaypea

[witpqs]

I'm in January '43 and things are not nearly as bad as you say. Things are a bit tight, but by focusing strong groups together I can systematically close enemy airfields. Here and there it's a bloodbath and takes time to break the AI strength, but why should it all be one way? And new a/c are coming on production, like Corsairs. I have loads of P-40E & K models, P-39 and P-400's, various Hurricane models, some Spitfires, P-38's, etc.

I think the trick is to treat the bombers like precious resources: train them up, concentrate them, provide escort, provide sweeps if possible, and definitely rest them between missions. Check your squadron leaders regularly and change them out when necessary. Oh yeah - perform recon for a few turns before you first hit an enemy airfield. It makes a big difference in how much damage you can do.

Good luck.

[SuluSea]

I was alarmed at all the talk about allied players struggling for aircraft but then started to think about my playing style. I've played over 100 hours on the GC since release and was only on Jan 3, '42 before restart with the beta patch and can't understand how a person in '43 can be as meticulous with his forces as I am on 1 day turns. My forces are nothing to write home about but nothing unexpected either.

I have to wonder if an allied player uses-
size 5 airfields or better/ at the very least size 4
checks all his air forces every turn and don't abuse his forces
Leadership
uses escorts when possible and only attacks soft targets
gets air HQs at the airfield ASAP if none are there
Airfield at a safe location
Attacks from safe heights depending on the AAA expected
flies in good weather and not at extreme distances

will he be in a pinch with his LBA forces? I'd be surprised if this were the case.


I will ask a question to the air team/experts.

I usually refrain from attacking in extreme weather. I realize less damage will be inflicted on the enemy and believe it the weather take a bigger toll on my forces than if I attacked in decent weather. Is that modelled?

Is that modelled being will I suffer more operational casualties flying in extreme weather with LBA.
Thanks for all you guys do. [&o]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jaypea
My game is in January of 1943 and the AI has lost a total of 17K a/c and in reserve, the AI has 34k a/c plus all full groups on the map.

Does anyone else think these figures are absurd? Japan started the war with less than 4000 military A/C of all types, and built 8861 during 1942 (including 2935 fighters and 2433 bombers). So historically we're talking about less than 13,000 A/C (of which only perhaps 70% are actually represented in the game) ballooning to almost 55,0000 A/C (all of which are represented in the game).

I don't care how dumb the AI is, it shouldn't need a 500% increase in A/C from historical reality to be competative. That's just rediculous....

[racndoc]

Actually, I think that the game designers just got things reversed....it was Japan that had the AC replacement shortages. According to "Shattered Sword", Japan produced a grand total of "just 56 carrier attack aircraft for all of 1942-a pathetically low figure." Akagi carried 66 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 54...18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates. Kaga carried 75 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals(plus 2 spares) and 27 Kates. Soryu and Hiryu carried 63 AC apiece at Pearl Harbor. At Midway, Soryu carried 18 Zeros, 16 Vals(plus 2 D4Y1s as recon AC) and 18 Kates while Hiryu carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates.

In effect "Kido Butai carriers had suffered a 16% decrease in their fighting power since December. Any casualties to the operating air groups, even damaged aircraft, would immediately impact the tactical cohesion of the air units, since there were no spare aircraft to feed into the formations."

Imagine a Japanese player in WitP sending his carriers into the penultimate air superiority battle to destroy the USN carriers with sub strength air groups due to a lack of AC production.....dont think Ive ever seen or heard of that one before.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

Actually, I think that the game designers just got things reversed....it was Japan that had the AC replacement shortages. According to "Shattered Sword", Japan produced a grand total of "just 56 carrier attack aircraft for all of 1942-a pathetically low figure." Akagi carried 66 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 54...18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates. Kaga carried 75 AC at Pearl Harbor....at Midway she carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals(plus 2 spares) and 27 Kates. Soryu and Hiryu carried 63 AC apiece at Pearl Harbor. At Midway, Soryu carried 18 Zeros, 16 Vals(plus 2 D4Y1s as recon AC) and 18 Kates while Hiryu carried 18 Zeros, 18 Vals and 18 Kates.

In effect "Kido Butai carriers had suffered a 16% decrease in their fighting power since December. Any casualties to the operating air groups, even damaged aircraft, would immediately impact the tactical cohesion of the air units, since there were no spare aircraft to feed into the formations."

Imagine a Japanese player in WitP sending his carriers into the penultimate air superiority battle to destroy the USN carriers with sub strength air groups due to a lack of AC production.....dont think Ive ever seen or heard of that one before.

At least someone out there grasps the absurdity of this situation. [&o] And I would bet money that you, like me, would not have any problem if the game allowed the Japanese player to increase that pitiful historical output up to 200 or 250. [8D] But to THOUSANDS? [&:] This is just WRONG! And made worse by very tight restrictions on Allied carrier A/C availability. [8|]

[jomni]

I'm playing Japanese and I'm glad I have all the produciton I can get. I'm losing more planes than allies and I fear the pilot drought in the future. This coulpled with my inexperienced air group management (a lot of may squadrions are tired and refuse to fly)and clueless production goals.

But of course I don't the the AI bonuses.

[Smeulders]

A question to all those seeing such high AC numbers for the Japanese, at what difficulty level are you playing ?

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Arimus

ORIGINAL: mullk

I'm not looking to change U.S. production but want to stop the 3000 aircraft Japan is producing by telling the AI to not expand to 400 airframes at game start.

Is there an AI script that increases Jap aircraft production?

Also, what would we call a community designed scenario that corrects historical problems in the GC?

Heresy.[:D]