Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[darbycmcd]

I just noticed that you have a IJN pilot rate that is lower than stock in 43 on. hmmm, I guess this makes up for the quality increase. I haven't played enough in 43 to really notice yet from the Allied perspective. I still think the qualitative edge is a bit high, were the IJN pilots coming out of school that much better than USAAF (50 vs 30)? Also, I believe the pilot bump that Japan gets in 43 was supposed to also function as a bit of an HI drain for the late war. Have you looked at the potential benefit to Japan from having fewer but better pilots from this balance perspective?

As far as buffing the P40, in general I don't think you should mess with plane stats unless you have some data that something is wrong. It is too hard to draw conclusions about plane performance from a single game iteration. Pilot skill, leadership, force ratios, operational tempo, all that stuff adds up to influence the results and I think changing tech data to chase desired results opens up more room for problems. In my game I think the Hurricane has done slightly better than the 40, but British pilots were a bit better and I used them to cover more distant bases so they were up against longer-ranged strikes (higher enemy fatigue and generally fighters are flying escort instead of sweep). On the other hand, I used the Warhawks in more of a pulse tempo, resting them then putting a large percentage up at one time, which means fewer turn-backs and ops losses because of plane fatigue. Of course I did this because my opponent was running really large daily fighter sweeps, so the battles were large when they happened. So is the Hurricane better than historical, is the Warhawk worse?????

The Allied goodies are nice! I don't think they are that big a deal either way, they don't really change anything fundamental. One thing you could think about is turning on reliable torpedoes for allied subs. It is a big deal because it does change a important feature of the war, but maybe it would sort of balance out the effectiveness of the sub campaign over the whole war, which I think is a bit too low in the mid-end war because the Japanese player will take counter-measures. Since I think you did add a couple of E class and ASW planes, more early war carnage will at least motivate those changes!

[Nomad]

as far as this:

5. How about raise a few of the American aircraft reinforcement rates? Wouldn't want to do much but that might help

I would consider increasing the USA/USN reinforcement rates in the late 43 to 46 time frame by a bunch. This is to counter the flexibility that Japan has in production and considering that the USA/USN production was cut back mostly becasue of the real direction the war took. The US could have build considerably more if needed.

[John 3rd]

The Japanese pilots, historically, weren't very good at all upon graduation due to the Japanese never starting a rotation system of bringing in experienced veterans to help teach the hard-won lessons. Also the Training Program stayed too elitist through 1941-1942.

RA changes that where Yamamoto pulls out about 15% of ALL veteran IJN pilots and institutes a real, expanded training program. This holds until 1943-1944 when the war breaks through the system and causes it to fall apart.

Changing US Torps is something I would not like to mess with. That scandal cost the United States sooooo much that it is--for me--a key thing to understand in the frustrating first year of the war. HOW could you have TT that were never HONESTLY tested? How could the Sub Command Admirals IGNORE what their own Sub Captains were reporting? Boggles the mind...

[darbycmcd]

I understand what you are saying about the torps, but is that a bigger deal than any of the changes you can see for the Japanese side? As you said, the torp thing boggles the mind, so the change is actually more believable. I don't have a strong feeling about it, but it is sort of funny to say that it is a key feature of the war, but then suggest that the Japanese should get better heavy bomber interceptors, as though that was not also a key feature.

The problem is that Japanese players use hindsight to institute an ASW/convoy program from day 1. It seems that this reduces the effectiveness of the sub campaign in 44-45, which is also a key feature of the war.

But like I said, it is whatever either way for me.

A better change would be to remove all the withdraw orders from the US air groups! It would give them a better training establishment and god it takes away so much tedious micro-management! Actually it is much better for balance to keep the US planes in Oz, rather than add a couple of garrison units to PM. I have yet to play a game where the Japanese player (myself included) is not able to completely shut down resupply ops to PM with long range air attacks from Rabaul. Adding troops there is just adding points to the Japanese when they sink xAK after xAk trying to run a couple more cases of Fosters in there.

I also agree about expanding replacement rates for US in 43+. I think this mod encourages more aggressive Japanese play, and the US could have easily responded to more aggression with a larger share of the production pie going to the Pacific. It is a bit much to buff one side so much without considering the impact on the other side. If the Japanese shoot down many more bombers, well the US could have send many many more to make up for it.

[John 3rd]

I agree with your commentary and those are excellent points made in the final two paragraphs above Darby.

What would people think about pulling the 'withdraw' orders for some or all of the US Air Groups? Need to think on that idea some. Stanislav?

Replacement Rates are easily do-able. The key here is to be realistic. What would be logical and POSSIBLE for the Allied Side here?

[John 3rd]

Michael made the comment over the phone that any bump in replacement rates would have to be 'keyed' into the discovery of Japanese strength. If we work with that the increased numbers would start in--say--April/May/June of 1942.

[kfsgo]

With the latest beta patches the Allies can turn production of aircraft at on-map facilities on and off, even if they can't directly upgrade them - seems to me you could easily add f.ex some number of 10 unit/month P-39 factories to, say, Vegas, and HR their activation and use by PP expenditure - maybe put a static 'trigger' unit worth however many PPs there and tell the player to switch its command every time he wants to turn a factory on.

Not perfect, but it's some control.

[gajdacs zsolt]

I'm Darby's opponent in a slightly modified RA game and I thought I'd say a few words about pilot training:

You can edit the national average exp of pilots per year in the editor, but that number is not a constant thing. If there aren't enough pilots in TRACOM to keep quality up it steadily falls during the year. (And with the pulling out of experinced pilots from the on-map units you simply cannot put enough pilots into TRACOM!)

To give you some numbers:
IJN exp starts at 55 in '41. We are in 42/08 right now and my pilots are graduating at 39xp.
IJA seems to fare a bit better though: starts with 45, it's at 34 right now.

So it's not all that good on the evil side

[ny59giants]

Since there would have been "some" reaction from the Allies, and especially the Americans to the build up of Japanese naval strength, I looked at some minor tweaks in airframe production.

PBY-5 and PBY5A would each go to 15 airframes/month
TBD-1 Devestator would go from 3 to 10/month
F4F-4 Wildcat from 45 to 60/month
TBF-1 Avenger would go from 35 to 45/month (possibly move from 5/42 up to 4/42)
F6F-3 Hellcat would move up two months to 2/43
FM-1 Wildcat up two months to 3/43
SB2C01C Helldiver up two months to 3/43
SBD-5 up two months to 3/43

The Essex and some of the CVL Independence Class come in early 43, so the planes would help.

Halt withdrawl on three PBYs in early 42 (always need more naval search ability)
#2715 VP-21 (PBY-4) on 18 Apr 42
#2717 VP-22 (PBY-5) on 18 Apr 42
#2717 VP-102 (PBY-4) on 1 Jun 42

The 'only' other thing would be a very small increase in production of P-40s and P-38s as the Americans have enough pilots with the restricted groups training up pilots and don't suffer that badly from medium bombers losses.

[John 3rd]

Michael and I talked about these ideas on the phone. What do people think for a small reaction by the Allies to the Japanese?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The Japanese pilots, historically, weren't very good at all upon graduation due to the Japanese never starting a rotation system of bringing in experienced veterans to help teach the hard-won lessons.

They had no opportunity to systematically implements this due to never having enough pilots to begin with. Although a significant number of veterans was transferred to training, judging by biographies of aces and other notable pilots.

Anyway, I'm against acceleration or increasing production rates for early-war Allied planes, both to avoid a mutual power escalation circle and to reflect the assumption that Allies don't perceive their task as harder than it was IRL, at the beginning of the war and don't significantly expand their military buildup at the beginning. I was against the extra carriers for Allies (but not the conversion options) as well, for the same reasons.
But for the planes that arrive in 1944-45, expansion of production numbers might be reasonable, to reflect Allied response to stiffer Japanese resistance. There is also a gameplay/balance reason here as well. I firmly believe that Scen 70 should faciliate long and strategically interesting struggles and prevent early degeneration of the game into one-sided beatdown. Considering how effects of early advantages are multiplied throughout the game, this means that Japanese should be somewhat stronger at the beginning, compared to Scen 1, but not too much stronger. That's why I support less aggressive IJN disposition at the start and pilot EXP reduction. Most modded-in Japanese advantages should come to play in second half of 1942 and 1943, thus hopefully keeping Allied advances the matter of skill, rather than applying overwhelming force. And they do.
Now, in 1944, if Allies have failed to deeply penetrate Japanese perimeter for that long, mere overwhelming force stops being sufficient for the win. They must strike fast right into vital points (against now-hardened Japanese defenses), instead of slowly rolling forward under LBA cover, if they want to secure their objectives on time. So, giving Allies (even) more planes in 1944 is relatively unlikely to detract from the game and might add to it, as trading ground for time against overwhelming forces is a fun part of the game too, assuming it can be meaningful, and in 1944 it can (at least in terms of victory level shift, if nothing else).

So, anyway, if you want, I might formulate my proposal for late-game Allied production expansion in detail within a day or two.

[darbycmcd]

I would also favor unrestricting about a corps worth of US LCUs that appear in the game but can never leave the CONUS. Two things I think more aggressive Japanese players do that the US would respond to are invade Oz and push very hard in India. Giving the Allies some troops to respond to these moves makes sense. I also don't see it as unbalancing in the long run because by the time the Allies are switching into serious roll back the red tide mode, I don't think lack of major combat formations is the problem.

For increased air craft, seriously just get rid of the withdraws and unrestrict the units. That gives you about 75 more P39, P40B, P40E and B17s. That is a nice bump of several months production, it makes sense because those units were actually in theater, and it isn't unbalancing because it only really matters in the first few months of the war when the agro Japanese players are going crazy all over the map.

[darbycmcd]

Gajdacs - I am sooo happy to hear you at least are having some problems in the azz-whupping you are giving me!!!!

[FatR]

Getting rid of the withdrawals will matter enormously throughout the game, with multiplying benefits over time. Even if Allies won't have air support on the frontlines to utilize them for creation of critical plane mass, and that's a serious "if", expanding their on-map training squadron capacity by up to a couple hundreds of pilots, in addition to the existing advantage in this area, is a huge boost. As about realism, most of the Allied units that get disbanded early in the game were effectively destroyed in RL.

[Lecivius]

I don't think pre-war air frames should be changed at all.  And I'm an AFB.  Seriously, the American public would not have gone for the expense pre-war, even if the Japanese flat out ignored the Washington Accords.  I do think that mid war models might get tweaked a bit to reflect the sudden "exposed danger".  There were already limited plans to direct desperately needed material from Europe to the pacific.  Midway allowed the Europe First plan to get into gear sooner than anticipated. 
 
There never was enough patrol a/c.  Plus, the Battle Of The Atlantic was taking every possible long range air frame.  It was just facts.  So the withdrawal of patrol squadrons, while a real PIA, is understandable.
 
The torpedo issue is a definite keeper.  Don't mess with it.  All Americans should be reminded of the cost of equipment complacency.  The war would have ended a year or more earlier if hardware & tactics had been up to the task.
 
That's my 2 cents.
 

[John 3rd]

Sounds like we have an early agreement in two areas:

1. A reduction in Naval Air starting experience.
2. A redistribution of December 7th starting forces for the Japanese.

Stanislav--Your Post above is well-written and thought out. Cannot really disagree with much of what you say. Nice summary of your thinking and ideas!

How about we go back to the early RA brainstorming days and tackle this a topic at a time:

A. What do people think about the idea early in the page about changing the US Fleet distribution on Dec 7th? Specifically regarding bringing some S-Boats from the West Coast to Pago Pago and augment the Pago Pago Operation by bringing CV Lexington into the area?

B. ACTIVE discussion topic regarding whether or not to slightly augment the production/arrival rates/dates on planes listed in Michael's Post.

1. PBY-5 and PBY5A would each go to 15 airframes/month
Seems like we could raise one of these--even by just a few per month--for a slight gain. Which is the newer model? (I assume the 5a) So why not look at that one?


2. TBD-1 Devestator would go from 3 to 10/month
Doesn't really impact my thinking either way here. THREE is insane but maybe leave them as is and slightly make Avenger higher. Would REALLY leave the US CVs in the lurch but provide more demands for Avenger.


3. F4F-4 Wildcat from 45 to 60/month
Don't know.

4. TBF-1 Avenger would go from 35 to 45/month (possibly move from 5/42 up to 4/42)
See above comment, however, I think we could bring it in a month early OR raise production slightly for May.

5. F6F-3 Hellcat would move up two months to 2/43
Going by Stanislav's thinking and comments this might be pretty appropriate idea.

6. FM-1 Wildcat up two months to 3/43
Ditto the above.

7. SB2C01C Helldiver up two months to 3/43
I'd leave this plane where it is. It did have real teething problems.

8. SBD-5 up two months to 3/43
Would agree and be in line with #5 and #6.

Stanislav--I remember you being opposed to adding those additional American CVLs. It seems FOREVER since we had that conversation doesn't it?

C. Keeping some of the Allied war withdrawals.

Michael suggests the 3 PBY squadrons. I am not sure here and don't really have a strong opinion.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Zsolo007

I'm Darby's opponent in a slightly modified RA game and I thought I'd say a few words about pilot training:

You can edit the national average exp of pilots per year in the editor, but that number is not a constant thing. If there aren't enough pilots in TRACOM to keep quality up it steadily falls during the year. (And with the pulling out of experinced pilots from the on-map units you simply cannot put enough pilots into TRACOM!)

To give you some numbers:
IJN exp starts at 55 in '41. We are in 42/08 right now and my pilots are graduating at 39xp.
IJA seems to fare a bit better though: starts with 45, it's at 34 right now.

So it's not all that good on the evil side

Hi Sir. How far are you in your game?

My pilot graduation numbers are about the same as yours, however, my Home Island, Korea/Manchuria, and China training programs are doing so well I am not very concerned about it.

[gajdacs zsolt]

We're in '42 august, almost september. I'm not too concerned either, on-map training mostly solves the "problem". But I don't know how would this effect me if I'd have a full scale air war on my hands...

In our game the US is out of the war till 43/1, or until I attack them directly. The main enemy is the USSR!

Because of this my pilot losses are more than managable.

I personally think that there should be no exp reduction for the japanese (JFB speaking ). Strengthen the allies a bit if you want to balance things.

[FatR]

At the moment I can only restate that I'm flatly against any acceleration and/or increase in production for Allied planes before 1944. Particularly for game-changing planes, like Hellcats. Sorry, but looks like you've misread that part of my post. I suggest we return to this topic within two-three weeks, as by that it time it will become clearer, whether often-postulated Japanese ability to outattrit and chase away Allied aviation throughout 1942 does indeed exist. Either Allies will be knocked out by that time or my air offensive in Andamans will likely fizzle from pilot losses/influx of P-40Ks (in addition to Hurricane IIc and P-38F buildup). Allies still have Marines and Canadians to throw into the fray too.

Well, I might have been more willing to accept increase in the number of transport planes, as their operational losses are dire, but I believe they (and patrol boats, which I find OK anyway) already received some boost?

[John 3rd]

Zsolo is in Aug 42, Lew and I are in late-July, what is your date FatR? Could just look on the AAR I guess...

Has anyone played RA further time-wise?

Think we have made some good progress here. I think it is easy to correct things from the very start and, as FatR states, very hard to predict what is to happen later in the war.