Cap'n Geezer and Adm Kid Vs. The SpaceChickens

[USSAmerica]

I can't complain about the Farmville production from Steve.  Along with the Nebraska corn, he's mixing in P-38's, P-40's, B-17's, engineers, base forces, and lots of non-corn supply and fuel.  [:D]

[AW1Steve]

The new crop of CV's and CVL's is doing nicely. By summer of 43 we should have a "bumper crop". [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Grollub

ORIGINAL: USS America

Well the turn we "received" was the last one we described, where the Space Chickens started landing at Wyndham and our B-17's mostly conducted tourist sightseeing flights over the invasion force. 

"Come see the massive Japanese armada from the air, watch some Zero's hurt themselves by running into our "defensive" guns, and even see what it's like to drop bombs into the ocean and splash the enemy ships.  No Japanese ships will be harmed during the sightseeing tours."  [:D] 

Aww, what a nice tour! The PETA will be happy that you try to avoid hurting the LYBs [:'(]

ORIGINAL: USS America

That was last turn.

March 23/24:
We sent the turn back yesterday and I watched the replay late last night.  The second time around, the B-17's must not have been carrying tourists, as they actually hit a handful of ships with a bomb, including "obliterating" one small CM or something like that.  The Albacores at Darwin even flew against a TF that stopped within 6 hexes of Darwin.  Sadly in both phases, they flew unescorted before the B-17 raid of the phase, so most of the small squadron was intercepted and shot down by Zero CAP over the two attacks.  None of their torpedoes hit a target. (EDIT: Just re-read the combat report to check the dates and remembered that one Albacore hit CL Kuma with a torp!)  The same can not be said for my subs!  Several are on station along the approach to Wyndham and in that hex.  I had around 5 or 6 sub attacks hit targets, including the heroic KXI (I think) who put a total of 5 fish into CA Maya. [8D]  That should be a little payback for the crew of Repulse!  The subs that attacked have all recently repaired damage at Perth's yards and I made sure all of their CO's were top notch before they left the port.  I think that made a difference.  More subs coming out of the yards at Perth over the next 10 days, and 4 enroute from Townsville.  I have plenty of fuel for the subs at Darwin, but there is no AS there to reload torpedoes, so they will have to return to Townsville or Perth when they run out.

After 2 turns of landings, the Japs easily took the almost undefended base at Wyndham with 4 SNLF's and 2 construction Bn's.  No Division size units present there yet, but I wonder if they will follow up with some who try to cut off Darwin over the dirt road? 

The Japs also paid a courtesy visit to the base at Darwin with a CA and 6 DD's.  The 12 PT's there met them, but were engaged at 10k yards.  I lost 1 PT before they disengaged.  The enemy didn't try to bombard, so they must have been just a scout/raid type of SC TF.  It seems to me if they were intended to clear out my PT's they would have sent only DD's and not risked the CA, but the Chickens are not me, so maybe that was their intent.  They will have to come back some more if that's the case, as 11 PT's still guard the harbor. 

It will probably be tonight or tomorrow before we get the turn back.  If there are any notable details I'll post them.

Oh, yeah, Steve-O loaded some more ships at San Francisco.  [:D]

Re Maya; Now that is good news. Sinking those *very* capable ships is always a high priority.
Re Darwin; I'd guess so. It's certainly more economical and less risky than taking Darwin with a direct amph assault.
Re the Mid-West farmer; More rutabagas coming out of Farmville instead of something you actually can use? [:'(][:D]

I keep the "rutabagas" (P-39's, and P-400"s ) at home for fodder (training).Even P-26'sand B-10's. Although they don't fight well, they produce fighter pilots. I have got a group of "long-noses (P-39's) devoted to training ground attack. (BTW , hat tip to Mike who's India trained Chinese pilots are shaping up VERY well. They are almost as good as the current best USA pilots).

I'm trying to set up "Broad based curriculum" for pilot training. As I have a number of "Non-deployable " units, I'm trying to use several of them as "Specialized Graduate" schools. I might have a particular squadron set to escort, another to sweep , and a third to ground attack. I try to run pilots from one , to the next, then the last. Obviously I'm doing the same with bombers. Patrol , not so much. I need every PBY I have out on the scouting line. But I have been using Kingfishers and Seagulls in all aspect of training from naval search , to ASW to general.

Any training tips would be much appreciated! In fact ALL advice or tips are extremely appreciated![&o][&o][&o]

[Grollub]

Disclaimer; This is not some primer on exactly you should conduct your training. Just my thoughts and what I do. Use or lose. [:)]

Funny - I keep the P-40s home to a larger extent than the P39s, which I consider to be a better defensive fighter (which is what you need most in the beginning of the war IMO). Better manueverability than the P-40E. Also, getting hit by that 37mm cannon usually that the target hit goes down - hard.

The first weeks/months of the war I exhanged/disbanded out all those P26, P35, P36 and P40Bs from the front sqns to use them in the 4th AF on the WC for training, freeing up the quality A/Cs that they had (especially the P-38s). Having done that, I usually check on/cull the pilots of my training sqns roughly once each month. Usually at the beginning of a new month when I also check out eventual new ship upgrades.

As for skills training, there is one skill that people on this forum hardly mentions and that is the "Defense" skill. IMHO, given the low replacement rates of the A/C the allies have on most of the early planes, getting their own planes to survive and fight later is as important as shooting down the other sides planes. From mid-42 I never release any pilot from training that haven't ~70 in both his primary skill and defense.

As for USAAF & USMC training, you (should) have enough sqns that you can use for training behind the frontline, unless you're in the practice of using understrength sqns at the frontline. The problem is having enough sqns for USN training. As for USN DB pilot training, I usually resize the one of the CV Wasp DB sqns (VS-71) that is bound to be disbanded 1 Mar 43. I resize it to fill out the otherwise empty carrier (making it size 76). That means that until I must withdraw the sqn in 43, I can train 101 (76 multiplied with 1.25) pilots in that sqn (see pic below). In the meantime (until the other sqns automatically resize to fill out the CV), I usually use some USMC sqn to fill out the CV to it's capacity. I usually do something like that with the CV F & TB sqns as well - lift some of them off for training (and replace with USMC sqns). Also, depending on the situation, if you're quite sure you won't use your CVs for some month or two (e.g. when upgrading the ship itself) - cull the onboard pilots and replace them with greenies and start to train them. If a situation arises where it's likely that you absolutely must intervene (should seldom happen) with your CVs, use the "request veteran" button to recall your crack pilots back to the onboard sqns. Ok, it can take some 1-2 weeks for them to arrive, but that's something you have to live with.

If you want me to elaborate on something else or clarify anything I said above, just ask. [:)]

Edited: Forgot the picture.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Grollub

Disclaimer; This is not some primer on exactly you should conduct your training. Just my thoughts and what I do. Use or lose. [:)]

Funny - I keep the P-40s home to a larger extent than the P39s, which I consider to be a better defensive fighter (which is what you need most in the beginning of the war IMO). Better manueverability than the P-40E. Also, getting hit by that 37mm cannon usually that the target hit goes down - hard.

The first weeks/months of the war I exhanged/disbanded out all those P26, P35, P36 and P40Bs from the front sqns to use them in the 4th AF on the WC for training, freeing up the quality A/Cs that they had (especially the P-38s). Having done that, I usually check on/cull the pilots of my training sqns roughly once each month. Usually at the beginning of a new month when I also check out eventual new ship upgrades.

As for skills training, there is one skill that people on this forum hardly mentions and that is the "Defense" skill. IMHO, given the low replacement rates of the A/C the allies have on most of the early planes, getting their own planes to survive and fight later is as important as shooting down the other sides planes. From mid-42 I never release any pilot from training that haven't ~70 in both his primary skill and defense.

As for USAAF & USMC training, you (should) have enough sqns that you can use for training behind the frontline, unless you're in the practice of using understrength sqns at the frontline. The problem is having enough sqns for USN training. As for USN DB pilot training, I usually resize the one of the CV Wasp DB sqns (VS-71) that is bound to be disbanded 1 Mar 43. I resize it to fill out the otherwise empty carrier (making it size 76). That means that until I must withdraw the sqn in 43, I can train 101 (76 multiplied with 1.25) pilots in that sqn (see pic below). In the meantime (until the other sqns automatically resize to fill out the CV), I usually use some USMC sqn to fill out the CV to it's capacity. I usually do something like that with the CV F & TB sqns as well - lift some of them off for training (and replace with USMC sqns). Also, depending on the situation, if you're quite sure you won't use your CVs for some month or two (e.g. when upgrading the ship itself) - cull the onboard pilots and replace them with greenies and start to train them. If a situation arises where it's likely that you absolutely must intervene (should seldom happen) with your CVs, use the "request veteran" button to recall your crack pilots back to the onboard sqns. Ok, it can take some 1-2 weeks for them to arrive, but that's something you have to live with.

If you want me to elaborate on something else or clarify anything I said above, just ask. [:)]

Edited: Forgot the picture.

How do you select the ability to expand that squadron? I emptied the carrier, (excepting that squadron) but my options are 1) no resize or 2) will expand to 36.....How do I get 76?[&:]

[USSAmerica]

I think you need to "keep clicking" the resize link until you get the option to enter the size.  Something I've never actually played with before.

[Grollub]

Hmm ... you just keep clicking on resize (I believe three times is the charm). Then, a pop-up should kick in telling you to fill in what size you want on the sqn. In the pic below, I'm about to resize the CVL Hermes sqn to 20.

ETA: Hmmm ... it could be that these resizing things only work up to a ceratin date. I'm past Aug-42 when most of the CV sqns do their first "automatic" resizing, and I just found out that I can't resize the other CVs VS sqns anymore. The Wasp VS stays resized as shown, but I can't change the others.

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: USS America

I think you need to "keep clicking" the resize link until you get the option to enter the size.  Something I've never actually played with before.

Mike, you should do this when your (Brit) CVs start to get due for withdrawal. Resize their sqns to the largest possible and fly them ashore for pilot training.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Grollub

ORIGINAL: USS America

I think you need to "keep clicking" the resize link until you get the option to enter the size.  Something I've never actually played with before.

Mike, you should do this when your (Brit) CVs start to get due for withdrawal. Resize their sqns to the largest possible and fly them ashore for pilot training.

[AW1Steve]

So there seems to be no rhyme nor reason to which groups you can switch and which you can't. Seems like you need just to try as often as you can. I don't suppose Tracker holds any clues?[&:]

[Grollub]

Dunno. My installation of the Tracker messed up when I had my hard disk failure a couple of weeks ago.

[AW1Steve]

Mike, we might want to review the house rule about resizing to fit, before you implement any changes. Looks like we were "out-lawyered" by the Chickens again. [X(][8|][:(]

[Onime No Kyo]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Mike, we might want to review the house rule about resizing to fit, before you implement any changes. Looks like we were "out-lawyered" by the Chickens again. [X(][8|][:(]

DC&H strikes again! [X(]

Thats very impressive lawyering for a poultry expert and whatever the heck the spaceman does. [:D]

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Mike, we might want to review the house rule about resizing to fit, before you implement any changes. Looks like we were "out-lawyered" by the Chickens again. [X(][8|][:(]

You have a house rule against rezising?! [X(]

ETA: I thought you went with very few HRs (?), thereby my surprise if should have one specifically aimed at that.

[USSAmerica]

Yep, it's one of only 5 HR's we have in place:

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units.   Clarification on the intent of this one: The HR is intended to allow some expansion to fit carriers for existing organic airgroups or airgroups added to carriers without organic airgroups, while side-stepping the gameyness of having bajillions of IJNAF or USNAF pilots in training squadrons.   Common sense: If you're going to use it for scouting / fighting, you can expand it to use to fit the carrier in question. CVE-Rs, for their rather unique role, don't fit this mold well and should be allowed their oddly outsized replacement mission, IMO.

[AW1Steve]

House Rules:

1. Must spend FULL PP to move restricted units from China/Manchuria/Korea/India/US. Thai forces can leave Thailand for any purposes to max 4 hexes from the Thai border. Same for Indian troops within 4 hexes of Indian border. Note the word full PP. avoid any of the 25% work around for getting troops out of US/manchuria/India, while still allowing to use the 25% where appropriate.

2. No strategic bombing before 1943. No strategic bombing before 1944 against targets in China.

3. Stratosphere Sweep... Current proposal as suggested by TheElf: "Simply: no fighter sweeps higher then the ALT with the second best MVR value" He later states that there is no need to limit CAP "target" or "patrol" altitude for various reasons.

4. Turn 1 & 2: Allies may not change existing default CAP units. No TFs may be created anywhere except Manila. Manila is limited to having 50% of each ship type in port ordered to sea. Not "keep 10 PT's in port and ship out 10 DD's". Those already in existence, may be moved (e.g., Force Z). Japan will not hunt down US CV TF's on turn 1 & 2.

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units.

Clarification on the intent of this one: The HR is intended to allow some expansion to fit carriers for existing organic airgroups or airgroups added to carriers without organic airgroups, while side-stepping the gameyness of having bajillions of IJNAF or USNAF pilots in training squadrons.

Common sense: If you're going to use it for scouting / fighting, you can expand it to use to fit the carrier in question. CVE-Rs, for their rather unique role, don't fit this mold well and should be allowed their oddly outsized replacement mission, IMO.


I thought that Mike did a pretty good job of narrowing them down. Had I stayed involved in negoitiation (I walked away to find a wall to bang my head against) we would have had no game at all. CB's proposed HR book would have been the size of a small dictionary!

Even with the few rules, I find myself re-checking the rules periodically just to make sure that I'm not inadvertantly violating some. I think that too many houserules suck the life out of a game. My defination of too many rules? More than one. [:(]

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Yep, it's one of only 5 HR's we have in place:

5. Limited 'expand to fit ship' functionality for IJNAF, USN, RN. Exception: USN CVE-R units.   Clarification on the intent of this one: The HR is intended to allow some expansion to fit carriers for existing organic airgroups or airgroups added to carriers without organic airgroups, while side-stepping the gameyness of having bajillions of IJNAF or USNAF pilots in training squadrons.   Common sense: If you're going to use it for scouting / fighting, you can expand it to use to fit the carrier in question. CVE-Rs, for their rather unique role, don't fit this mold well and should be allowed their oddly outsized replacement mission, IMO.

Ah, ok.

[Alfred]

Just read the entire AAR.

I concur with Grooub's comment regarding the importance of only sending pilots to the frontlines with both their primary and defence skills at 70+.

Back in post #63, the graduate pilot training program was explained. Whilst I agree with the value of having pilots in air units for advanced training, I don't view the transfer of a pilot from unit 1 thence to unit 2 thence to unit 3 to be efficient. Every time you remove the pilot and send him to a new unit, you are incurring a transfer time of up to 2 weeks. That is time not spent on training. Far more efficient is to keep the pilots with the unit and change the unit's training mission.

Another pilot training thing you need to keep an eye out for is whether you have all the pilots active in the unit and therefore training. In my praxis, inactive pilots do not improve their skills. When you pull in "veteran" pilots for advanced training (as per above paragraph and your post #63) and you exceed the 1:1 pilot ratio, you run the risk of having the excess pilots made inactive and therefore not training.

Don't forget that pilots will continue to train even if there are no ariframes present in the unit. Air units which are not scheduled for withdrawal can be upgraded as long as there is a single airframe in the pool of the new upgraded model. Thus for 4th AF units not scheduled for withdrawal, you can release airframes for frontline use by upgrading the unit to a single airframe and still have your stateside pilots continue their training.

Alfred

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Just read the entire AAR.

I concur with Grooub's comment regarding the importance of only sending pilots to the frontlines with both their primary and defence skills at 70+.

Back in post #63, the graduate pilot training program was explained. Whilst I agree with the value of having pilots in air units for advanced training, I don't view the transfer of a pilot from unit 1 thence to unit 2 thence to unit 3 to be efficient. Every time you remove the pilot and send him to a new unit, you are incurring a transfer time of up to 2 weeks. That is time not spent on training. Far more efficient is to keep the pilots with the unit and change the unit's training mission.

Another pilot training thing you need to keep an eye out for is whether you have all the pilots active in the unit and therefore training. In my praxis, inactive pilots do not improve their skills. When you pull in "veteran" pilots for advanced training (as per above paragraph and your post #63) and you exceed the 1:1 pilot ratio, you run the risk of having the excess pilots made inactive and therefore not training.

Don't forget that pilots will continue to train even if there are no ariframes present in the unit. Air units which are not scheduled for withdrawal can be upgraded as long as there is a single airframe in the pool of the new upgraded model. Thus for 4th AF units not scheduled for withdrawal, you can release airframes for frontline use by upgrading the unit to a single airframe and still have your stateside pilots continue their training.

Alfred

Agreed. [;)], especially if you are doing as Alfred says (and I missed), that you shouldn't shuffle pilots around between training units. Also, the tip about the need to check the training sqns at times to activate inactive pilots is good.

Just one additional note. As Alfred says, you can train pilots even in units with no airframes. At the same time, I have this hunch (I have no statistical data or have seen on the forum) that the pilots gain their skills faster the more planes you have in the unit.

[AW1Steve]

Thanks for the tips guys! I definately won't put that plan into action! How about I do it as a squadron? As soon as a squadron reaches a certain skill level, I switch it over en masse? Say from escort to sweep? Then when everyone hits a certain standard, they "graduate" and I send in some veterans who are "not quite up to standards"?